Skip to main content

Full text of "Commission meeting[s]"

MARYLAND & RARE BOOK ROOM 
^RSITV - '..lAr.YLA.^D LIBRASX 



DO NOT ClRCULAlfc 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COMMISSION 



COMMISSION MEETING 
Brown Estate 
-Port Deposit, Maryland 
.October 24, 1966 



VOLUME VIII 



f9(, 7 
FOLfO 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COMMISSION 



WILLIAM PRESTON LANE, JR. 

Honorary Chairman 

H. VERNON ENEY 
Chairman 



ROBERT J. MARTINEAU 
Secretary 



E. DALE ADKINS. JR. 
HARRY BARD 
CALHOUN BOND 
ELSBETH LE\^ BOTHE 
FR.\NKLIN L. BURDETTE 
RICHARD AV. CASE 
HAL C. B. CLAGETT 
CHARLES DELLA 



STANFORD HOFF 
MARTIN D. JENKINS 
CLARENCE W. MILES 
EDWARD T. MILLER 
CHARLES MINDEL 
JOHN W. MITCHELL 
E. PHILLIP SAYRE 
ALFRED L. SCANLVN 



MRS. MAURICE P. FREEDLANDER L. MERCER SMITH 



JAMES OC. GENTRY 
JOHN R. HARGROVE 



MELVIN J. SYKES 
FURMAN L. TEMPLETON 



WILLIAM C. WALSH 
• *••••• 

JOHN C. BROOKS 
Executive Director 

KALMAN R. HETTLE^rAN 
Assistant to the Executive Director 



William Prescott Allen (Resigned January 5^ 1966) 
Ernest N. Cory, Jr. (Resigned May 13, 1966) 
Walter R. Haile (Resigned Deoember 20^ 1966) 
William J. McWilliams (Resigned September 10, 1965) 
Ridgely P. Melvin, Jr. (Resigned August 2, 1968) 
George L. Russell, Jr. (Resigned July 12, 1966) 



******** 



700 Mercantile Trust Building 
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COMMISSION 
COMMITTEES 



COMMITTEE ON ELECTIVE FRANCHISE 
AND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS 

James O'C. Gentry, Chairman 
(appointed Chairman on 
July 12, 1966) 
Charles Delia 
Leah S. Freedlander 
John R. Hargrove 
(appointed on July 12, 1966) 
Stanford Hoff 
John W. Mitchell 
(appointed on November 9, 1966) 
Melvin J. Sykes 
(appointed on July 12, 1966) 
Lewis D. Asper, Reporter 



COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTIVE 
DEPARTMEN T 

E. Dale Adkins , Jr., Chairman 

Calhoun Bond 

Charles Mindel 

E. Phillip Sayre 

Furman L. Temple ton 

Garrett Power, Reporter 



Elsbeth Levy Bothe 
(served until June 6, 1966) 
Ernest N. Cory, Jr. 
(served until May 13, 1966) 



William Prescott Allen 
(served until January 5, 1966) 
Ernest N. Cory, Jr. 
(served until May 13, 1966) 
George L. Russell, Jr. 
(served as Chairman until 
July 12, 1966) 



COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE 
DEPARTMENT 

Harry Bard, Chairman 

Charles Delia 

Edward T. Miller 

Charles Mindel 

Alfred L. Scanlan 

John H. Michener, Reporter 

(appointed on September 12, 1966) 



Martin D. Jenkins 
(served until June 6, 1966) 
William C. Walsh 
(served until June 6, 1966) 
Alexander Harvey, II 
(served as Reporter until 
September 12, 1966) 



COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 
DEPARTMENT 

Robert J. Martineau, Chairman 
(appointed Chairman on 
August 2, 1966) 
Elsbeth Levy Bothe 
John R. Hargrove 
(appointed on July 12, 1966) 
Clarence W. Miles 
Melvin J. Sykes 
(appointed on July 12, 1966) 
Lawrence F. Rodowsky, Reporter 



Richard W. Case 
(served until June 6, 
William J. McWilliams 



1966) 



(served as 
September 

Ridgely P. 

(served as 
September 
August 2, 

George L. 



Chairman until 
10, 1965) 
Melvin, Jr. 
Chairman from 
10, 1965 to 
1966) 
Russell , 



(served until July 
E. Phillip Sayre 
(served until June 
L. Mercer Smith 
(served until June 
William C. Walsh 
(served until June 



Jr. 
12, 

6, 

6, 

6, 



1966) 



1966 



1966 



1966) 



COMMITTEE ON STATE FINANCE 
AND TAXATION 

Richard W. Case, Chairman 

Calhoun Bond 

Stanford Hoff 

Martin D. Jenkins 

L. Mercer Smith 

Stephen H. Sachs, Reporter 



COMMITTEE ON MISCELLANEOUS 
PROVISIONS 

Elsbeth Levy Bothe, Chairman 
Leah S. Freedlander 
James O'C. Gentry 
Furman L. Temple ton 
Lewis A. Noonberg, Reporter 
(appointed February 26, 1966) 



Harry Bard 

(served until June 6, 1966) 
Charles Mindel 
(served until June 6, 1966) 



COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL 
SUBDIVISIONS AND LOCAL 
LEGISLATION 

Hal C. B. Clagett, Chairman 
(appointed Chairman on 

December 2, 1965) 
Franklin L. Burdette 
Leah S. Freedlander 
Clarence W. Miles 
(served as Chairman until 

December 2, 1965) 
L. Mercer Smith 
John B. Howard, Reporter 
(appointed on May 12, 1966) 



William Prescott Allen 
(served until January 5,1966) 
Ernest N. Cory, Jr. 
(served until May 13, 1966) 
Walter R. Haile 
(served from July 12, 1966 

to December 20, 1966) 
Edward T. Miller 
(served until June 6, 1966) 
Frank A. DeCosta, Jr. 
(served as Reporter until 

February 22, 1966) 



COMMITTEE ON STYLE 

Franklin L. Burdette , Chairman 

E. Dale Adkins , Jr. 

Harry Bard 

Richard W. Case 

Martin D. Jenkins 

Margaret Kostritsky, Reporter 



E. Dale Adkins, Jr. 
(served until June 6, 1966) 
William Prescott Allen 
(served until January 5, 1966) 
Walter R. Haile 
(served from July 12, 1966 to 

December 20, 1966) 
William J. McWilliams 
(served until September 10, 1965) 
Ridgely P. Melvin, Jr. 
(served until August 2, 1966) 
Furman L. Temple ton 
(served until June 6, 1966) 
John Martin Jones, Jr. 
(served as Reporter until 

February 23, 19 66) 



Calhoun Bond 

(served until June 6, 1966) 

Hal C. B. Clagett 

(served until June 6, 1966) 



COMMITTEE ON CONVENTION PROCEDURES 

Alfred L. Scanlan, Chairman 

Hal C. B. Clagett 

James O'C. Gentry 

Robert J. Martineau 

Edward T. Miller 

John W. Mitchell 

(appointed on November 9, 1966) 

E. Phillip Sayre 

Eugene Pitrof, Reporter 



Franklin L. Burdette 
(served until June 
Charles Delia 
(served until June 
Stanford Hoff 
(served until June 
Clarence W. Miles 
(served until June 
George L. Russell, 
(served until June 



6, 


1966) 


6, 


1966) 


6, 


1966) 


6, 
Jr 
6, 


1966) 
'l966) 



I 









1 

2 


CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION C0>2'IISSI0N 




5 


Meeting of the Constitutional Convention 




4 


Commission held on Monday, October 24, 1966, at 




5 


10:30 o'clock a.m., at the Brown Estate, Port Deposit, 




6 


Maryland . 




7 


PRESENT: 




8 


H. Vernon Eney, Esquire, 
Chairman of the Corrir.^.ission 




9 


Honorable E. Dale Adkins, Jr., Member 
Dr . Harry Bard , Member 




10 


Calhoun Bond, Esquire, Member 
Mrs. Elsbeth Levy Bothe, Member 




11 


Dr. Franklin L. Burdette, Member 
Richard W. Case, Esquire, Member 




12 


Hal C. B. Clagett, Esquire, Member 
Mr. Charles Delia, Mem.ber 




13 


Mrs. Maurice P. (Leah S.) Freedlander, Member 


\ 




James 'Conor Gentry, Esquire, Member 


14 


Walter R. Haile, Esquire, Member 
John R. Hargrove, Esquire, Member 




15 


Stanford Hoff, Esquire, Member 
John B. Hovrard, Esquire, Member 




16 


Dr. Martin D. Jenkins, Member 

Honorable William Preston Lane, Jr., Mem.ber 




17 


Robert J. M£;rtineau, Esquire, Member 
Edward T. Miller, Esquire, Member 




18 


Charles Mindcl, Esquire, Member 
John W. Mitchell, Esquire, Member 




19 


Mr. E. Phillip Sayre , Member 
Alfred L. Scanlan, Esquire, Member 




20 


Mr. L. Mercer Sm.ith , Mem.ber 
Melvin J. Sykes, Esquire, Member 




21 


Dr. Furman L. Temple ton, Member 






Honorable I'illiam C. Walsh, Member 






Reoorted bv t 




1 


N . F . Swe t land ^"*- '^^"^ ^^T"^ ^T'^''"'' '""" 

100 Iqiiilahlr Uuil.hng 


> 




Court Ktporlerl Blltimorr 2, MaryljnJ Utinflon 9.l,:t,0 





1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



ALSO PRESENT: 



John C. Brooks, Esqu5.re, Executive Director 
Dr. John H. Michener, Research Assistant 
Dr. Clinton Ivan Uinslow, Consultant 
Mrs. Margaret Kostritsky, Reporter 
Stephen II. Sachs, Esquire, Reporter 
William Noonberg, Esquire, Reporter 



THE CHAir>IAN: Can we get started, please? 
The first matter on the agenda v<;ill be the approval of 
the minutes of the August meeting. They were circulated 
just the day prior to the meeting a week ago. Are there 
any corrections or additions? If not, the minutes will 
be approved as circulated. 

MR. MARTINEAU: Is Judge Adkins here? 

THE CHAIRx^lAN: Not yet. 

MR. MARTINEAU: He had a question he mentioned 
last time as to v;hether he Vi7as the one who made the 
motion, and frankly, I thought he was going to bring it 
up . 

THE CHAIRI^N: We will hold it off until he 
comes. Next item is the report of the Secretary. 

MR. MARTINEAU: Nothing to report. 



Court Reporters 



THK JACK SAI ^MON KKPORTIN'C SERVICE 

100 Fqiiitiblc Buil.iirjtf 
Baltiinnre 2, Mar>IunJ 



Lexington 9-67(iO 





3 




1 


THE CHAIRI>IAN: Next is the report of the 


I 


2 


Executive Director. 




3 


MR. BROOKS: No report. 




4 


THE CHAIR>L'\N: I have just a very few things 




5 


to mention. First, I want to let all of you know that 




6 


Clarence Miles continues to improve. Mrs. Miles said 




7 


that if he continues at this rate, he will go horns some- 




8 


time this coming week, the latter part of the v;eek. He 




9 


V7ill probably be home for several weeks. He was quite 




10 


seriously ill for a time. He had an emergency operation 




11 


for gall bladder which they found had become dangerous 




12 


and had a touch of pneumonia after that, but is recover- 


1 


13 


ing nicely. He is at Johns Hopkins. The Commission's 




14 


work is, as all of you, I am sure, realize, quite far 




15 


behind our schedule, and I am hoping that the bits and 




16 


pieces that v.'e now hav^e v;ill fall into place so that we 




17 


can begin serious work on our Report very promptly. 




18 


Our next regularly scheduled meeting is November 21. I 




19 


would like each of you to keep that date marked on your 


I 


20 


calendar, but I am sure that we will have to arrange 


t 
j 

1 
1 


21 


another meeting of the Commission before that time, 




^ 


THE JACK SN'.OMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 EQjilable Buil.Iing 

Ccurl Reyorur, Baltimore 2. NUryL-nd iexinf/on 9.6.-60 


1 



1 because there are a number of matters that are still 

2 open v;hlch need solution by the Commission, and we can- 

3 not wait until November 21 to have an ansv^er on them. 

4 I cannot even suggest when the next Committee 

5 work will be completed to the point that these remain- 

6 ing questions can be submitted to it, and therefore, 

7 rather than try to arrange now for another meeting and 

8 agree on when it shall be, we will try to get in touch 

9 with each Member of the Commission before the end of 

10 this week v;hen hopefully we will have a better idea as 

11 to what the status of the Committee work will be. I 

12 would ask each Committee Chairman and Reporter as soon 

13 as this meeting is over or if you have any breaks in 

14 between, to check over your oxra work and let Mr. Brooks 

15 or me knov; just as quickly as you can what additional 

16 matters have yet to be reported by your Committee and 

17 give us some idea of what your present plans are for 

18 Committee meetings. 

19 Here let me emphasize that, much as I regret 

20 to suggest to any of you that you have additional meet- 

21 ings this week after this two-day meeting, I am afraid 



Court Rrpoflt-FS 



THE JACK SALOMON KEHOKTING SERVICE 
100 EquitjLlc Bui!!ing 
Baltimore 2. NluryljtnJ 



Lezint'on 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

14r 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



it is going to ba absolutely imperative that we gat 
the Coraraittee loose ends tied up within the next week or 
ten days. It seems to me that probably it will be 
desirable in order to save time that v;e circulate revised 
drafts of the text by mail as quickly as they can be 
assembled and sent out to you. 

For this reason, V7e v?ould like the Committee 
Chairmen and Reporters to double check the Staff and 
give us a marked up copy of the draft of their particular 
part of the Constitution as their notes indicate it is. 
I say this because we are tv70 months behind on the index- 
ing of the transcript and the preparation of the minutes. 
This is a huge job. V;e simply don't have the manpower 
to do it, and this means that we cannot rely on the 
analysis of the transcript to pick up everything. We 
will have to rely on our notes and use the transcript 
as a check V7here notes are in conflict. May I ask that 
as each of you receive reports by mail that you do not 
lay them aside. We have found that in an effort to save 
postage and the clerical job of mailing that v;e sometimes 
put urgent letters together v;ith rather bulky reports 



Court Reporters 



THt JACK SAi.OM.iN RF.J'ORTING SERVICE 
100 Fqui-.abl; BjiMing 
BaItir:orc 2. M«n''""' 



Ltxinilon 9-i7iO 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



in the same envelope, and some of you v;ill assume it is 
all report and V7ill lay it aside until you have a chance 
to look at it. For that reason, a number of people 
did not get the notice of this meeting or got it but did 
not receive the notice right av;ay. 

Open your package, even though it is bulky, 
to sec if it is an urgent communication. We will endeavor 
to flag in some way for you the enclosures that are 
sent to you v;hichrequire immediate review, so that at 
least you can give priority to those particular matters. 

As all of you know, there are three matters 
which are of special order of business for this afternoon. 
I purposely made the matters a special order of business 
for this afternoon immediately after lunch so as to 
insure to the extent we can get the maximum possible 
attendance in case you are delayed in arriving but also 
to enable the Commission Members to discuss among them- 
selves at lunchtime the Reports that v.'ill be acted on as 
special order of business. They will be taken up in the 
order in which they were made special orders of business. 
That means that the special Report, not a numbered report, 



Court Hvportert 



THE JACK SALOVCN KI.POHT INC SERVICE 
109 Equ.'.atle Buil'^ir.g 
Baltimore 2, Mar>b.itl 



LtMir.{lon 9.6.'.<0 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
Id 
16 
17 
18 

19 

20 

21 



but the special Report of the Committee on Miscellaneous 
Provisions submitting a redraft of Section 3, I think it 
was, as requested by the Commission. 

At the last meeting will be the first matters. 
You will have that redraft, I think, before lunchtime, 
and you can be looking it over and any other suggestions 
V7hich Member} have in connection with that and can be 
discussing it at lunchtime. 

Secondly, the special order of business to 
come up will be the discussion on the question of uni- 
cameral or bicameral legislature. You have, or should 
have, with you the complete draft of the Legislative 
Article providing for unicameral legislature submitted 
to you at the last meeting. You will recall that the 
Commission's decision on that was to recommend alternates, 
bicameral and unicameral, but to recommend one or the 
other . 

So the question to be discussed this afternoon 
is V7hich to recommend. As I think all of you knov;, 
the divisions of the various groups which have discussed 
this matter with the Legislative Committee and the 



Court Rt-portcrs 



THE JACK SAT.OMON HKPORTING SERVICE 
100 Tquitablc Biii'Jing 
Baltin.irt: 2, MarjIaiiJ 



Lexinilon 9-6760 



' 



8 



1 
2 

5 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

21 



division of that Committee have always been very close, 
almost in an even division. Presumably the Coninission 
would divide in somev^hat the same v;ay, and I ask this, 
that you discuss and give soms thought to that at lunch- 
time so that the debate V7hich will make up the record 
on this issue to go to the Convention will be meaningful, 
and if you give some thought ahead of time to just what 
you are going to say and make your point concisely and 
briefly. 

The third matter will be the Report of the 
Committee on Political Subdivisions. This v;ill be a 
lengthy report. It involves not one, but a number of 
very important policies. This Report deals with one of 
the most difficult and troublesome areas of Constitution- 
making which the Commission faces, and I want to rem.ind 
you nov; just of a fev7 of the decisions that the Commis- 
sion has heretofore made and some of the problems that 
will be presented to you in connection v;ith that Report 
so that you can be giving some thought about those, too. 
At the meeting tvv'o sessions ago, the Consnission decided 
in favor of the approach which V70uld give the counties 



Ccurl Rrporlcrt 



THE JACK Salomon KD-nnTiNC slrmce 

100 Eqwitjble DiiilJing 
Baltimore 2, MarylanJ 



Lexinfton 9-6T60 



and the phrase used by the Conmittee residual pov^er. 
In other words, that the counties will have, broadly 
speaking, all executive and legislative but not judicial 
pov7er , except to the extent that it is taken away from 
them by 'expressed law of the General Assembly. The 
same meeting decided tentatively on authorizing what we 
call, for lack of a better term, regional government, 
some government larger than a county and smaller than 
the State. But that was not discussed very fully, and 
the exact extent to v;hich the Coinmittee and the Commis- 
sion V7ant to go on that is a matter yet to be determined. 
It cannot be further deferred. The Committee has a 
draft and several alternate drafts, as a matter of fact, 
but the decision of this question must be made at this 
meeting because if it is deferred any longer, the neces- 
sary drafting just can't be done, 

I anticipate that those special orders of busi- 
ness will take the rest of the afternoon and the evening 
session. I would hope that we would conclude those by 
the evening session. This leaves us still for considera- 
tion a very substantial am.ount of material. There is 



Court Reporu-tt 



THt JACK SAT.CMON Kf.POr>TINO SERMCF. 
100 EquiiabU Diiilding 
Baltiir.ort 2, MarylinJ 



LtMinsion 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



10 



another Report of the Committee on the Judiciary Depart- 
ment. For the most part this is merely corrections, 
but there are one or two very substantial policy matters 
that need not take long, but must be discussed and de- 
cided. The Sixth Report of the Committee on Miscellaneous 
Provisions, this is not the one dealing with the educa- 
tional provisions but other provisions, and then the 
further Report of the Committee on Legislative Department 
with respect to impeachment. Each of you should have 
this morning two memoranda, research memo by W. E. Sim- 
mons, and a separate memo, research memo by Mrs, Freed- 
lander dealing v.'ith the question of impeachment. If you 
will look at those, I think you will conclude that there 
is no inherent pov/er of impeachment in the Legislature 
or at least it is very dangerous to assume there is, 
and this means v;e will have to make a decision as to v;ho 
shall have the power of impeachment and to what officers 
it shall extend. We then have a Ninth Report of the 
Committee on Declaration of Rights and Elective Franchise 
dealing V7ith a Preamble and a redraft, revised draft of 
the bill proposed for the 1967 session of the Legislature 



Court Rvportert 



THE JACK S'wOMON HF.PORTINC SLRVICE 
100 Eni.ijblf Buil.iing 
naltimote 2, MarvianJ 



Iciinj/on 9«."60 



11 



1 providing the machinery for the Convention. 

2 As you can see, this is a very heavy agenda, 

3 but I think if vje move briskly as v;e did at the last 

4 session, we can complete it. 

5 All right, let's now proceed to a consideration 

6 of the Third Report of the Committee on State Finance 

7 and Taxation . 

8 Mr. Case? 

9 MR. CASE: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

10 I CoiVimission , this Report involves two sections or Articles 

11 of the Declaration of Rights, so far as affirmative 

12 action is concerned, and there are other negatives which 

13 I shall discuss subsequent to consideration of the 
14: affirmatives. 

15 The first affirmative is, and I might say 

16 parenthetically that the affirmatives have taken the form 

17 of complete recasting of Articles 14 and 15 of the 

18 Declaration of Rights in the present r> star: ce and for 

19 reasons I will indicate as we go through this. Fourteen 

20 is relatively simple and embraces one principle. 

21 Fifteen is much more complex, and I am sure. 



THE JACK SAMlMON KEf'OrvTSNC SERVICE 

lUO Eqi'KBblt Itiiilding 

Court Rtporur, Baltimore 2. M»f/la.id Ltxinftcn 9-6760 



12 



1 requires a rather extended discussion of \7hat is being 

2 left out and v;hat is being substituted, because there 

3 are some very definite substantive substitutions that 
4: are being recommended by the Committee to which your 

5 attention will be invited at a later time. These are 

6 the two tax Articles in the Declaration of Rights, 

V Articles 14 and 15, and to start with, Article 14, as 

8 you Vv-ill see on the first page of the Report, it now 

9 says that, No aid, charge, tax, burthen or fees ought 
10 to be rated or levied, under any pretense, without the 
H consent of the Legislature. 

12 This is, of course, the 1776 version of the 

13 cry. No taxation v7ithout representation, and it V7as 

1^ taken by and large from the Article 3, from the Stamp Act 

15 Congress resolutions of 1765, which read that it is 

16 inseparably essential to the freedom of the people and 

17 the undoubted right of Englishmen that no tax be imposed 

18 on them but with their own consent given personally or 

19 by their representatives. 

20 In some States, in modern practice, it has 

21 become possible to delegate taxing powers to nonelected 



' THE JACK S.aLOVON Kf.l'OaTlNC SCKVICL 

100 Eqijilabk- Bu'Kiinj 

„ , on 11 Lexinfion 9-6760 

Court Rvporleri BaIt;tMure 2. MaryltnJ 



13 



1 boards and agencies, but our Committee feels that this 

2 would be very incorrect procedure and bad as a matter 

3 of Substance, and we feel that the Constitution ought to 
^ make it perfectly clear that only the elected represen- 

5 tatives of the people carry the right to impose tax. 

6 Therefore, the nev; Article 14 will be found on Page 2 as 

7 recommended by the Committee, at least vjhich says in a 

8 little more modern language that, No tax shall be imposed 

9 except for a public purpose and except by the elected 
representatives of the people. 

^^ The, public purpose, wording apparently is 

■^2 Implied in the Court decisions which have construed 

13 presetit Article 14, but we felt that this ties in nicely 

1^ with the use of that phrase, so far as the borrowing 

15 capacity is concerned in Section 34 of Article 3 which 

IC the Commission has already considered. 

IV So that, Mr. Chairman, is -~ I don't knov; 

18 whether you V7ant to take action on these as we go along. 

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Burdette? 

20 DR, BURDETTE: A question, Mr. Chairman, 
about the elected representatives of the people. That 



10 



21 



THE JACK SAl CMON RF.PORTINC SERVICE 

100 ■E.-n;itiiS!t Buil.Iins 
Court Reporltri Biillitnort 2. Maryland 



4: 



8 



12 
13 



20 
21 



14 



^ would strike me as being subject to the interpretation 

under our new Constitution that the Governor and Licu- 
5 tenant Governor, elected representatives of the people, coul 

exercise the taxing power under doctrines that have 
^ developed in the Federal Government that the President of 
" the United States is the most representative of all the 
' elected officers. I am not sure, that is the first part 
of the question -- the second part is whether or not 



Q 

this is intended to mean below the State level and at 

the local level so that boards, well, even at the State, 
11 



even the State or local level, that hoards elected by 
the General Assembly, if there are such later created 
could be given' the taxing power and if local boards be- 
ing elected by representative bodies could receive the 
taxing power. 

^^ MR. CASE: The answer to your questions in the 

inverse order the way you presented them are that first, 
^^ boards which are appointed by the Legislature are not 
^^ elected representatives of the people and v;ould not have 
the taxing power and this provision, as I tried to ex- 
plain a fev; m5,nutes ago, is directed expressly at this 



-V cji-;^t:1-i lng , thai o -^;^;^^^^^:^^^;^'^^^^^^^^ <^^ ^^^^ 

JOO Equilublr Buil.li:ig 
Court Reporleri Ballllror^ 2. MjryUnJ 



1 

2 

3 

4- 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



15 



people can have the power t:o exact a tax from them. 
Agencies that are not elected by the people, a very good 
example of it would be the V/ashington Suburban Sanitary 
Comniission, for example, v;ould not be able to impose a 
tax, that the ultimate power of imposing the tax rests 
in either the County Commissioners or County Council, if 
you are going into some form of government other than the 
County Commissioner form. 

Now, as to V7hether or not the Governor is an 
elective representative of the people, I must confess 
I have never heard that contextadvanced , although from 
the standpoint of the tncrG use of the English language, 
I suppose it could be said that the Executive is, but 
elected representatives of the people are words of 
art, really, it seems to me, and they come down to alm.ost 
from Magna Charta to the present time to mean the Legis- 
lative Branch as distinguished from the Executive Branch. 

THE CHAIR>IAN: Mr. Gentry? 

MR. GENTRY: My question is whether v;e really 
need such provision as this at all for the reason we 
would have, I assume we v/ill have in Finance or Legislative 



Court Rvporten 



THE JACK SAlUMO.N Rf.PORriNC SERVICE 
100 Equitable Buii.ling 
Baltin:or<: 2, Mdr)ljn.l 



Lexington 9-6760 



16 



^ Articles the grant of the taxing power and in the absence 

2 of any such grant elsewhere, there would be no other 

3 taxing power, so it may not be -- why I have no objection 
* to this language as such, it may not be necessary to 

5 state it twice. In other xjords, to say well, this body 

^ does have the taxing pov/er and in another Section say, 

''' but nobody else has any taxing pov;er . 

8 THE CHAIRMAN: There is no expressed grant of 

^ taxing power in the Legislative Article. 
1^ MR. GENTRY: And there would be no expressed 

^^ grant of taxing power in anybody other than the Legis- 
lature, so it would fall to the Legislature to impose 

^3 any taxes in the absence of the grant of such taxing 

^^ power to some other unit of government. 
15 MR. CASE: Let me ansvs r that. I think this 

1^ goes to the fundamental concept which must be kept in 

^^ mind continually through this whole discussion, and a con- 

^® cept, I might add, in which the Court of Appeals in 

^^ deciding a number of cases even in modern times has not 

kept in mind, and it is, of course, that the Legislative, 



12 



20 



^^ the Legislature being the holder of the sovereignty of 



THL JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICK 

100 FnuitabU Builling 

Court Reporter, Bahiniote 2, MaryljllJ Ltxintlon 9-6760 



17 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



the people has plenary power to impose taxes and there- 
fore, it is not necessary to make a specific grant of 
the taxing pov;er as it is in the Federal Constitution, 
for example, to the Legislature because it there rests, 
and this is clear. 

Now, what this Section should do is to make 
it perfectly clear that the Legislature cannot delegate 
that very important power to some board or agency or 
anybody other than the elected representatives of the 
people . 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sykes? 

MR. SYICES: My question is, does the language 
do that? It permits a tax to be imposed by the elected 
representatives of the people which you say means the 
elected legislative representatives, although I think 
maybe the word, Legislature, would clarify it, but if 
the Legislature passes a law v;hich says that a tax may be 
imposed by a Board of County Commissioners or by some 
administrative board which may not be directly elected 
by the people, the argument could be made from this 
language that the legislative representatives of the 



Court Reporten 



THE JACK SALOMON REPOKTINC SERVICE 
100 F.fl'iiljble HuiKIIng 
Baltiniore 2, Maryland 



Ltxiniion O-STftO 



i I 



18 



10 

i 

11 : 



12 



i| people have acted and in a sense Immediately although not 
'i directly they have imposed the specific tax in question 

II i 

5 -i by permitting it to be imposed by their delegate to the 

4 ^ \ 

;■ Legislature. ; 

^ !; MR. CASE: That is the same point Franklin 

" i! Burdette v/as making. I think it has no validity, that the 

ji j 

' ! tax has to be imposed by the elected representatives of ' 

it ; 

° i| the people, not by some department or agency selected 



^ !| by the representatives of the people. 

hfR. SYKES: Wouldn't it be clear if the word, 
directly, or some such thing that would negate delega- 
tion, were written into the Article? 
^^ :, MR. CASE: If you can think of a v7ord that 

: is perfectly acceptable to me because this is the whole 
^^ ji idea to negate delegation to anyone other than an 
^" ■, elected representative of the group. 

^"^ ^, MR. SYKES: I v;ould suggest the word, except 

^° I; directly by the elected representatives of the people -- 

^^ ;j THE CHAIR2-IAN: May I raise a question with 

j- 
^ , you on that? The County Commissioners are going to have 

i, the power to impose taxes and while they are Legislative, 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.I'ORTINC SERVICE 
IPO Fnuitable Building 
Court Reporleri Baltin.ore 2. MarylaiiJ 



i 



1 

2 
3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 

- 

14 

15 

I 

1 

16 ' 

l| 

;i 

18 ! 
19 ; 

20 
21 I 



19 



they are also Executive. 

MR. SYKES: But while they are Executive, 
they are also Legislative. 

THE CHA1R2IAN; Mr. Case, did you want to 
comment on the suggested language? 

MR. CASE: I don't think that the word, Legis- 
lative, ought to go in for the reasons that have been 
suggested perhaps by the Chairman and primarily because 
as I understand the v7ords that are used in constitutional 
context, it is not necessary. The elected representatives 
of the people means the legislative body. That is what 
it does mean, but as far as directly by, those are your 
real suggestion, isn't it, Mel? 

MR. SYKES: Yes. 

MR. CASE: Directed by. I would like to think 
about it a little, but right off the bat, it doesn't 
strike me as being -•• 

THE CHAIRMAN: Let me make a further obser- 

1 

vation in connection with this same language. It may have; 
some bearing upon it if I do. Is it the intention of | 
the Committee in recommending this language that an electee! 



Court Rvporleri 



THE JACK SAIOMON HEPORTINC SERVICE 
loo EqinlabU- Building 
Ballinior; 2. Maryland 



Lexinfton 9-6T60 



4: 



10 



20 



1 school board which is certainly not a l2gislative body 

2 would have the power if granted the pov^er by the Legisla- 

3 ture? 

MR. CASE: They are not representatives of 

5 the people. 

6 THE CHAIPviMAN: There are some that are elected, 
V MR. CASE: They are elected, yes, but they are 'not 

8 representatives of the people. They are elected to do 

9 a Specific job on the school board. 

DR. BARD: Some States they are. They actually 

^1 set the school tax. 

j 
^2 MR. SCANLAN: That still doesn't make even ' 

_ _ I I 

15 i them the representatives of the people. j 

14 THE CHAIPJMAN: That is the point I want to have 

15 brought out, that the Committee's recommendations mean ! 

16 only elected representatives of the people in the technical 

17 ; sense, meaning representative for all purposes so that 
I 

18 |i you do more nearly mean legislative than anything else. 

19 ' MR. CASE: Right. 

20 I THE CHAIRl-lAN: Mr. Mindel? 

i 

21 I MR. MINDEL: Dick, I heard you say something 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.FORTING SERVICE 
100 EfluiuLlc Building 

y- D . D I.- •> «r T , t Ltxintton 9-6760 

Court Rrporlen Bsllimore 2, Mar) land • 



21 



1 about a tax set by County Commissioners. V/ould this 

2 mean a metropolitan commission that could not set a sewer 

3 tax? 

^ MR. CASE: What do you mean, a sewer tax? 

5 MR. MINDEL: They have a sev7er -- 

6 MR. CASE: You said two different things, 

V Charlie. When you are talking about the sewage charge, 

8 you are talking about a use charge, benefit charge or 

9 tax. 

10 MR. MINDEL: I ask the question, that does not 

11 I necessarily fall within a tax, does it? 

I 
i 

12 1 . MR, CASE: Benefit assessment or service 

13 charge, of course not. 

14 MR. MINDEL: It v;ould be outside of this area. 

15 MR. CASE: That is not a tax. It has been 

16 so ruled, and I could give you pages of ruling on that 

17 point. 

18 MR. CLAGETT: I want to be clear and ask the 

19 ' question that elected representatives would include 

20 County Comimissioners or County Councils of local sub- 

21 divisions . 



Court Reporlert 



THt JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Bui'Jipg 
Baltin^ore 2. Maryland 



Ltiinilon 9-6700 I 



22 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 ' 
14 
15 

16 || 

17 i; 



I 



18 
19 
20 
21 



MR. CASE: Yes, sir, 

THE CHAIPJ-L-MnI: Mr. Miller? 

MR. MILLER: I would like to asl; the Chairman 
about the word, taxes. You changed sorr.e of the wording. 
Would licenses be a tax? 

MR. CASE: A license? 

MR. MILLER: For instance, an auto license. 

MR. CASE: That is a tax. 

MR. MILLER: Your belief is that the State 
under this couldn't delegate the authority to the Com- 
missioner of Motor Vehicles or somebody to decide what 
the license should be on an automobile? 

MR. CASE: Absolutely. That is v.'hat we want 
to get at. 

MRS. FREEDLANDER: I have some reservations in 
including the word, directly, in light of the Political 
Subdivisions Report we V7ill get later. It directly might 
affect our political subdivisions. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Freed lander, I don't think 
if I understood the Committee's recommendation, that the 
elimination or failure to add, directly , would really 



Court ReporterM 



THF. JACK SALOMON RKPOPTING SLR\ iCL 

100 Eq-nt-iblf Buil-l:ng 
Eallimore 2, Mar/UnJ 



Lexinglon 9-6760 



1 

2 
3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



23 



permit a delegation. In other v7ords, if I understand the 
recommendation of the Coimiittee , it is that the Legis- 
lature or the County Councils or a Corninission of County 
Councils could not delegate a taxing power to a non- 
elected regional government. Isn't that your position? 

MR. CASE: That is exactly it. 

THE CHAIRllAN: So this would mean that if you 
created a regional government headed by a board which 
was not, and did not, include a representative form of 
government with elected representatives, the effect or 
intended effect of this provision is to prevent the Legis- 
lature from delegating the taxing pov7er of thc.t board. 
But if they are elected, popularly elected, then the 
pov7er could be delegated. 

Mr. Clagett? 

MR. CLAGETT: We draw the fine line of dis- 
tinction that Mr. Case has already defined in answer 
to Mr. Mindel*s question between tax and revenues. 

THE CHAIRM/^N: Yes, I think this should be 
made clear that the tax as used in its technical sense 
and does not mean a service charge or a fee or a particulc 



Court R^pcrteTi 



THE JACK SAT.UMON RF.PORTINC SERVlCt 
loo tTJitablr BuLlni-g 
Baltimore 2, MjryUiid 



tezinflon OiTt^O 



24 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



privilege or service or anything of that sort. 

Mr. Gentry? 

MR. GENTRY: I recognize your substitution of 
an existing Article in the Declaration, but does the 
Committee feel strongly that it should go in with the 
Declaration which heretofore or up to this point has been 
a reservation of private rights whereas this is, I v;ould 
look at this as more of a restriction on the plenary 
taxing powers of the State. 

MR. CASE: The answer to that is that our 
Conimittee has no desire to encroach upon the territory 
so well developed by your Committee, and we will be 
very happy to construct our o\-m little Article which v.'e 
will call Revenue and Finances, and put this in that. 

MR. GENTRY: Very good. 

MRS. BOTHE: There will be one anyway, won't 
there? . 

MR. CASE: I think so. 

MR. GENTRY: I think that is where it belongs 
and not a Declaration. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sykes , can we come back to 



Court Rtporltrt 



THE J\CK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Eauilatlc BuiMir.g 
BalfiRiore 2, Maryland 



Ltxinflo:t 9 6:6n 



9 



25 



1 your suggestion as to language? Do you want to make a 

2 motion? 

3 MR. SYKES: I had one further consent. As I 
^ gather from the discuss ion, what is really meant by the 

5 elected representatives of the people, is the Legislature 

6 on the State level or legislative bodies or bodies hav- 
"7 ing the local legislative power, elected by the people. 
8 MR. CASE: That is correct. 

MR. SYKES: And I would think that some such 

^^ succinct formulation would be possible V7hich V70uld clarify 

^^ these questions. I do think that the word, directly, 

^^ is necessary in order to avoid any doubt about v;h3t the 

13 Commission says it is doing. I am not V7eddcd to the 

1^ language, but I V70uld make a motion that V70uld be that 

15 the Article be redrafted in substance to read. No tax 

1^ shall be imposed except for public purpose and except 

1'^ directly by the Legislature or local boards exercising the 

1^ local legislative powers elected by the people. 
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, could you shorten that 

^^ by saying, Except the elected representatives of the 

^1 people exercising legislative power so you don't have to 



THL ]\CK SM.OMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Eqiitihle BuilJing 

_ , , « ■• I i Lexington 9-6'(>0 

Court Rtporlerg E«Uin:orc 2. Mji-)'*'"! 



26 



1 
2 
3 

5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



differentiate betv7een the State level and local level. 

MR. SYICES: The only thing that gives me some 
concern is your example or somebody's example of school 
boards who have a certain amount, may have a certain 
amount of legislative power. But I would be perfectly 
happy V7ith your formulation of it if that problem doesn't 
give you any trouble. 

THE CHAIRI^IAN: V7ell, this is normally the kind 
of thing 1 would like to refer back to the Committee, but 
time is such I don't know v/hether it is feasible. Can 
we ask the Committee and its Chairman to think about this 
and maybe come back to it before this meeting is over 
rather than adopt the language right here. 

MR. CASE: I will think about it. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Is that satisfactory? 

MR. SYKES: Yes , sir. 

MR. CASE: I think it is cLtright the v;ay it 
is. You clutter it up with a lot of v;ords,and you just 
get nov-'here. 

THE CHAIRMAN: The next recom.rcendat ion . 

MR. CASE: Nov^, we move on to Article 15 and 



Court Beportert 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.POi-.Ti.NC bEKVlCE 
100 rqn. table Buil'ii.l? 
Baltimore 2, Marybiid 



Lexington 9-6T60 



4: 



8 



27 



1 Article 43 v;hich have to be considered together and the 

2 Report; I knov? probably a lot of you have not had a chance 

3 to read the background of 15, v;hich is a very interesting 
background to those of us who enjoy thinking about fis- 

5 cal matters. It goes back all the way as far as our 
^ Constitution is concerned, although it has been amended 
'J' primarily, v;ell, in a major instance in 1915 an amendment 

was made to validate a city tax on securities that had 
^ been invalidly collected for about twenty years prior to 
"^^ that and also an amendm.ent V7hich was embraced with great 
^^ fervor by the single tax movement indicating hov; a move- 

ment such as this can come under the tent of people who 
13 have good ;. intent ions and still something in a basic 
1^ document such as a Constitution V7hich lasts for many 

15 years and people forget v/hat is behind it, and then they 

16 don't really know vjhat it means in the first place. So, 

17 there is an interesting historical background, and I 

1^ V70uld invite the Commission to look at the Report, because 
1^ I think it gives a fairly good synopsis, thanks to Mr. 

Sachs, of this background. Nov?, I am not going to go into 
it all except as it applies to the specific points that 



12 



20 
21 



THE JACK SAMJMON RKt'ORTINC SERVICE 

100 FqiiiUblr BiiilJin; 

Court Reporler, e.ltiriort 2. M^r-Jjnd Ltxingior. 96.-6.1 



28 



J- V7ill be made. The amendment, as it nov; reads, starts ' 

2 out that the levying of taxes by the poll is grievous 

3 and oppressive and ought to be prohibited, that 

^ paupers ought not to be assessed for the support of the 
5 Government -- we are recommending this be eliminated 
^ from the Constitution. The thrust of our recommendation 
'^ is that the Constitution's limitation on the taxing pov;er 

^ should be that of equality as far as possible and unifor- 
mity as far as possible. The poll tax is not a tax which 
has been used in recent years for the purpose of raising 



9 
10 



20 



^^ revenue, although it once was. 

^^ Very fev7 States have the prohibition against 

12 the poll tax as such. Maryland did, for historical 

1^ reasons unrelated to voting, I might say. Of course, 

15 the Supreme Court's recent decision permits the imposition 

1^ of a poll tax if it is not a prerequisite to voting and oujr 

1^'' Committee felt that this particular matter should be left 

1^ to the Legislature within the guidelines of proper clas- 

1^ sification, uniformity and as will be suggested later. 
Now, the amendment, Article 15 also says that, that the 



^^ General Assembly shall -- and I have always v^ondered whether 



T^HE JACK SAIOMON RF.PORTl.NC SERVICE 
100 ETr.iufclr BuilJin? 
Court Reporurt BaUin.orf 2, MarybnJ 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



29 



there V70uld be any profit at all in taxing paupers, but, 
it has occurred to me that there would be, and the Com- 
mittee seemingly thought that this was a pretty archaic 
provision and recommended its elimination. I might say 
that at an earlier time, I think it v;as when Mrs. Bothe's 
Committee was dealing V7ith the exemption law, I did 
raise the point at that time as to whether or not this 
particular provision had any constitutional meaning as a 
basis for the exemption lav7S , and I think it ^jas your 
viev;, Mrs. Bothe, that it did not, and not having any 
utility in that area, I think it is archaic and should go. 
Now, the next Section really is the heart of the problem 
because nov? what v;e are dealing with here is the question 
of classification and uniformity. It has been my exper- 
ience in dealing with tax matters for the State and 
such opportunities as I have had that I can recall this 
was particularly true when V7e were writing the sales 
tax and the rules and regulations that construe it 
and participating in the hearings, that generally speak- 
ing, V7hile nobody likes to pay taxes, the intelligent and 
informed person will recognize the fact that the govern- 



Court Rfponm 



THE JACK SALOMON HFPORTING SERVICE 
100 l.qii;:iitle Buildir.g 
Baltimore 2, MatjlanJ 



Leiinglon 9-6. 'ftO 



30 



mental bill has to be paid. V.^hat he v;ants to make sure 
of that at least he is treated like his neighbor if his 
^ neighbor is similarly situated. In other v;ords, the 
criteria of a fair tax program necessarily depends on 



4 



^ like treatment for like instances, and we in the tax 



6 



10 
11 
12 



field call this uniformity, V7hich stems from proper 



classification. 
8 

9 



Article 15 of the Declaration of Rights for 
many years contained a provision v.'hich sought to reach 
uniformity. In the first instance, the thrust of this 
particular Section V7as really on the ability of the tax- 
payer to pay because as early as 1776, the Constitution, 
^^ Article said, and I am quoting. But every person in the 

State ought to contribute his proportion of public taxes 
^^ for the support of the Government according to his actual 
^" worth in real or personal property within the State. 
^" So, the yardstick v/as the actual worth of the person. 
^ He ought to pay, and the Constitution mandate was that 
^^ he should pay or contribute his proportion in accordance 
with that. Now, in 1915, the Article 15 V7as amended and 
brought into play for the first time the question of 

"~ THE J^CK SALOMON RF.fORTI.NC SERVICE 

100 Fqu'tatl? Dull.'ir.? 
Coun R.pcrf«, B.!:i.-n -r<- I. Manbr.J Irxinjfon 9-6:60 



31 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



classification, and as I said earlier, it was done be- 
cause Baltimore City had imposed a tax on securities 
and most every lav;yer in the State apparently knev; that 
the tax v;as unconstitutional because there was no power 
in the General Assembly to, they thought there was no 
power, I will put it that way, I am not saying there 
was or wasn't, but it was V7idely thought there was no 
power to classify. So in 1915 as a result of a number 
of studies that were made by the Citizens Tax Committee 
and so on, or a principal study, the Article V7as amended 
to provide that the General Assembly could by uniform 
rules provide for the separate assessment of land and the 
classification and subclassif ication of improvements on 
land and personal property as it may deem proper. 

It further said, and all taxes thereafter 
provided to be levied by the State for the support of the 
general State Government and by the Counties and by the 
City of Baltimore for their respective purposes shall be 
uniform as to land within the taxing district and 
uniform within the class or subclass of improvements on 
land, and personal property which the respective taxing 



Court F^pcrtt-rs 



THE JACK S^.'.OV.ON REPORTING SERVICK 
100 Eqi'iinhlc Buildini; 
Baltimore 2. Maryland 



Ltxi.ifioi 9-6760 



32 



1 
2 

5 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



powers may have directed to be subject to the tax levy. 
Now, it will be seen that this amendment was directed 
to taxes on land, and here I must digress for a minute to 
say that in the Report, there are certain words of art 
V7hich are familiar to tax lawyers but are not at all 
times familiar certainly to laymen oreven to sometimes 
other lav7yers . When V7e talk about a direct tax in the 
Report, we mean a tax on land or a poll tax, a capitation 
tax. Generally speaking, this is the definition, and 
all other taxes are called excise taxes, and this defini- 
tional dichotomy carried forv7ard in the Report. 

Secondly, when V7e talk about assessment of 
taxes, V7e talk about the act of fixing the tax liability 
and assessments can be made not just as to real estate 
taxes V7here you are accustomed to thinking of the deter- 
mination of the assessments fixing the tax bed, but it 
can be made in all kinds of taxes and the office of the 
assessment can be in the income tax agent determining 
the liability or it can be in the Legislature itself fix- 
ing the instar.ce, so bear in mind that as we go through 
here, I am using these words as words of art. 



Court Rt-porUTt 



THL J\CK Sa'.OMON nKPOKT'-NU SERVICI- 
100 to .i!;tlr Biii:Jir,g 
Biillim-.rt 2, Morylar.d 



i.»Jtin|/on 9-6."6(J 



4 



33 



Now, as I say, it will be noted that Article 

o 

15, while it did state with precis ion that there should 
^ be proper classification with respect to the property 

tax or the direct tax that could be levied in the State, 
^ said nothing about proper classification in the case of 
excise taxes. The Coirrnittee has sought to fill this 
deficiency in the language that we v^ill suggest to the 
Commission at a later time by making it, by making sure 
that it, that assessments of indirect taxes as well as 
direct taxes shall be so far as possible uniform within 
a given class. 

Now, this is already the law, as I say, with 
respect to real estate taxes. Nov;, the final Section of 
Article 15 can be found at the top of Page 8 of your 
^^ Report, and it says. Yet fines, duties or taxes may 
^^ properly and justly be imposed, or laid V7ith a political 
view for the good government and benefit of the commun- 
ity. 



7 

8 

9 

10 
11 
12 
13 



18 



^^ Nov;, just v;hat this language means has been 

something that has been discussed between lawyers and 
laymen interested in tax matters since the very early 

THE JACK SALOMON '.U.POi'TI.NG SERVICF. 

100 y.qi::iab!e B;ii)Jing 

Court Hepotl.:-, B.llin.ort 2, MaoI^nJ Lexinflc 9.t:o0 



34 



times. I remember when I first came to the Bar and was 

Q 

under the tutelage of Mr. Francis J. Carey, v;ho V7as 
^ recognized at that time as one of the leading, if not the 

leading local tax practitioner in the State, I \-7as told 
^ that this Section was in his judgment the authorization 
to impose an indirect tax. I have some doubt about the 
' accuracy of that because, as I have said earlier, it 

would seem that the General Assembly has plenary pov7er 
to tax and yet there can be found a number of statem.ents 
throughout the lexicon of tax matters in the State 
which indicate that political view tests the thing which 
would permit, for example, the imposition of an income, 
^^ a graduated income tax in this State. It adds really 
^ nothing, and it has been eliminated from the concept of 
^^ new Article 15 as it will be suggested by the Committee. 
^^ Now, there is one further thing that has to be discussed 
^ and understood before \ie get down to a specific con- 
sideration. In 1956 there v^as a concerted effort on the 
part of the Legislature to permit the separate classi- 
fication of land. Bear in mind the language I have 
read to you up to this point and contained in the 1915 



Q 

10 
11 
12 



18 
19 
20 
21 



THE JACK 3\I .i.VON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 r.qii'.dblc Building 

_,.-,,,. Lcxinilon 9-6T60 

Court Rtporicri Baltin ate 2. MaryUud 



35 



1 
2 
3 

4: 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



amendment to Article 15 dealt with the classification 
and subclassif ication of personal property with refer- 
ence to the assessment of property for direct taxes. 
In 1956 it was considered desirable and necessary to 
permit the separate classification of land for the pur- 
poses of assessing farm property. There had been a 
great deal of consideration given in the press and in the 
halls of the General Assembly about the problem of in- 
creasing land values in the State, particularly in 
Counties like Montgomery County and in Baltimore County, 
which were still actively devoted to farm or agricul- 
tural use but V7hich could be sold for very high prices 
for development, let us say. 

The General Assembly decided to authorize 
the State Department of Assessments and -- the State Tax 
Commission, to separately classify this land and put a 
lov7er valuation on it. This, they did. Subsequently, 
the matter came before the Court of Appeals as to the 
validity of the act of the "Legislature which authorized 
this separate classification of land and the Court of 
Appeals ruled that the act vjas invalid because Article 15 



Court Rt-pcrteri 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 F.t|Uitablc Building 
Ballin>i)re 2, Maryland 



Lexinflon l-tTr.O 



36 



1 did not permit the separate classification of land and 

2 hence the attempt to so classify it by the General Assern- 

3 bly v;ithout constitutional authority V7as invalid. As a 

4 result of that, the agricultural interests in the State 

5 proposed to the General Assembly, and itvas adopted , 

6 two amendments to the Constitution, one which is found 

7 in present Article 15 and authorizes the separate classi- 

8 fication of land for such purposes as the General 

9 Assembly may desire, and also in Article 43, the General 

10 Assembly passed a bill which would amend that Article 

11 to say as follows: 

12 Lands V7hich are inactively devoted to farm or 

13 agricultural use shall be assessed on the basis of such 

14 use and shall not be assessed as if sudivided or on any 

15 other basis. So the agricultural interests and those 

16 interested in the preservation of open spaces launched 

17 a tv;o-pronged attack on this subject. The General Assern- 

18 bly accepted this. The Constitution was amended in tv70 

19 respects. It was submitted to the vote of the people 

20 in 1960. It was very strongly backed editorially by the 

21 Baltijmore Sun and by other less v/ell-known newspapers in 



THE JACK S>I>'''>:u.N KKfOSniNC SERVICK 
100 F.iiuitabU Euihling 
Court Rrporlert Ealtjr.inrt 7. Mai) land " 



37 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

21 



the rural areas, but the Sun gave it very strong backing, 
and the amendment was passed by the vote of the people 
over a 3 to 1 vote. Now, the only other thing that has 
to be knovm about this is that in a more recent case, 
coming from upper Montgomery County, the Court of Appeals 
ruled that the test was how the land was used, v^hich is 
what the amendment really said, and not what the person 
V7ho ov7ncd the land was or where he lived or v/hether he 
V7as the person v^ho liked to live on a nice estate and 
look out at the cows grazing or a fellov7 who actually got 
out there and did the work hijuself. But if the land 
V7as used, it was "actively devoted to farm or agricul- 
tural use", then the land was, or could be assessed for 
this purpose and should be assessed for this purpose and 
not at any higher valuation. 

Now, the solution that the Coirmittee came to 
with respect to this problem, I will discuss in a moment, 
but suffice it to say that the Committee did have a 
number of hearings with the people v;ho are interested in 
agriculture in the State, the Farm Bureau and the Grange, 
both appeared at public hearings, strongly supported the 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SAIOMON PKrORTINC 5ERVICF. 
100 Iquiublc nuildmg 
Ballinioie 2. X'.iryland 



LtMirtf'on 9-6 "60 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



38 



retention of this language in the Constitution. The 
State Board of Agriculture passed a resolution, your 
present deponent saying naught at that particular time 
because I didn't V7ant to be charged with wearing too 
many hats ijn this situation, by: a vote of 10 to nothing 
or 9 to nothing, the State Board of Agriculture strongly 
recommended the retention of this particular language. 
On the other side of the coin, the State tax administra- 
tors, v;hile believing that farm assessments, bona fide 
farm assessments should get the benefit of a lower 
valuation, felt, however, that the completely sujcctive 
test that is found in Article 43 should not be permitted 
to stand, and its rigidity should be replaced by a more 
flexible test that V70uld permit the Legislature to 
classify land for agricultural use, and assessments could 
be made accordingly. 

The Committee accepted this, sort of a middle 
ground. They did not eliminate, or does not recommend 
the elimination from the Constitution of a specific 
direction toward this problem, and I think this v7as done 
primarily because, v;ell, for two reasons. One is, I 



THE JACK SALOMON F.r.I'OItTlNC SERVICE 

100 Equitable BuiKiing 

Court Rrporltn Baltimore 2. Msryland texinjfon 9-6:60 



1 

2 

5 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

15 

14 

15 

15 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



39 



think, every Member of the Committee feels this is a 
sound thing to do, that is to say, to classify land devote 
to farm or agricultural use differently from other lands; 
and secondly, there was passed, as you all will recall, 
at one of the earlier sessions of this Commission, a 
general guideline rule v;hichsaid to the effect that v^here 
a matter has been presented to the people in the very 
recent past, where the matter has been discussed with 
some degree of clarity, hopefully some degree, that 
these decisions made by the people should not be summarily 
rejected by this Conaiiission. 

If there is ever a situation which would 
admit the application of this rule, it is this situation 
where you have the Court of Appeals throwing the v7hole 
program out and the Legislature coming right behind it 
and reinstating the program, a great deal of conversation 
having been had in the newspaper and other news dissem- 
ination media and the people accepting the idea by a 
better than 3 to 1 vote. It is for this reason that you 
will find at the end of Article 15 a particular mention 
of property devoted to agricultural use. 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON Kf."0!a !,\C SERVICE 
100 F'luitabU Buiilrng 
Callir.iore 2, Mjrylcr.J 



Leiinilon 9-6Tl'0 



40 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 

8 



9 



10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



Now, V7e have developed two philosophical 
concepts which are to be found in the new Article 15, 
and I should nov; direct your attention to a third be- 
cause the third is even more novel than the first two. 
Actually, the direct burden of taxation depended upon the 
amount of taxes you pay which depend in turn upon the 
direct assessment of the tax made upon you. However, as 
the Report points out, there is another concept of tax 
burden which, for the lack of a better v;ay of expressing 
it, we call the indirect burden, and the indirect burden 
comes about by reason of the fact that your neighbor 
has been under assessment, and I am using the word assess- 
ment, bear in mind, in the broad sense and not merely 
in the property sense, although the property or direct 
tax field is the best illustration of this particular 
point. The underassessment, conscious or unconscious 
of the taxpayer, means that the other members of the body 
politic are going to have to shoulder an increased burden 
because if government requires X-number of dollars to 
operate, these X~number of dollars must be extracted 
from the citizenry in varying proportions, and this is 



Court RtporU 



THE J^CK SA'OMON KF.VO!XTI.NG SERVICK 
ICO F.quitablf Building 
Baltiimre 2. Marylani! 



Lriington 9-6 "60 



Al 



1 .fine as long as you have a general and equal classlfica- 

2 tion and uniformity, but when underassessment takes 

3 place, then the burden is disproportionate, and it is 

4 this point that you begin to get perhaps an element of 

5 unfairness. 

6 This has been recognized, I might say, by 

7 many courts, and there is a rule established, I think our 

8 Chairman has some part in this in a case in the Court 

9 of Appeals some years rgo which says one of the remedies 

10 that a taxpayer has in Maryland if he feels there has 

11 been an underassessment against his neighbor is to 

12 appeal his neighbor's assessment. While this is not 

13 an exclusive remedy, it might have been thought so at one 

14 time after the Buck case V7as decided, but a later case 

15 ruled it wasn't; still, this is a right that you have 

16 if you want to exercise it. But there is another type of 

17 underassessment which is more easily discernible and 

18 something that doesn't require the somev;hat esoteric 

19 procedures of appealing another person's assessment, and 

20 one which can be isolated and put on the table, and we 

21 can all look at it, and that is the exemption, because 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.POKTINC SERVICE 
103 Equitf.blt Bu.Minu 
- -> n < . <^ «( t J Lexington 9-6760 

Court Reporltri Baltimore 2, Maryland • 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



A2 



an exemption is just another vjay of underassessment -~ 
and in our State, for example, in the property tax field, 
and again I am using this because it illustrates v;hat I 
am talking about, there are 60 separate exemptions of 
varying kinds from the property tax, so that the certain 
social club or union hall in Cumberland could be 
exempted from tax, but one in Easton V70uld not be, so that 
a literary society* s meeting house in Crisfield could 
be exempt, but a similar one in Port Deposit might not 
be . 

What we strive to do, then, is to correct this 
imbalance, and we do it very simply by saying in effect 
that as far as all taxes are concerned exemption should 
be uniform v^ithin classes, and this is the third concept 
and this is new in the present Constitution, To re- 
capitulate therefore, what v;e are dealing with here is 
an attempt at uniformity, and V7hat \-je are saying is that, 
or v;hat we need for uniformity is the requirement that 
taxes and exemptions be imposed by uniform rules to 
everybody. 

Now, that is the first touchstone of the 



Court Beporter$ 



Tilt JACK SAl OMON RF.POlTri.NG SERVICE 
100 F-Tiilohlt Buillin? 
Baltimor: I. Msnl^"'' 



Lexinglon 9-6T60 



43 



1 solution -- the uniform rules. Nov;, uniform rules is 

2 but a first step. You need a second step to say, in 

3 effect, uniform rules to whom. Well, uniform rules to 

4: the classes or subclasses of either taxpayers or proper- 

5 ty, whether it be real or personal or the interacts 

6 between the two, namely the event, the taxable event. 
V If you have, or if you give the Legislature pov7er to 

8 classify, and if you require that uniform rules be made 

9 within these proper classifications, then your tax struc- 

10 ture V7ill be just about as fairly applied as it can 

11 possibly be fairly m.ade, and that is what, on Page 18 

12 and 19, the nev; language of Article 15 says. 

13 It says that no assessment, using that v7ord 

14 in the broad sense, or any exemption imposed by this 

15 State shall be made except pursuant to uniform rules V7ith- 
IG in classes or subclasses of taxpayers, property or 

IV events as may be provided by law, and with respect to 

18 taxes on property, such classes may include property 

19 devoted to agricultural use. 

20 THE CHAIRl^l/iN: Any questions? 

21 Mr. Scan Ian? 



THt JACK SAI.UVO.S hF.PORTlNC SERVICE 
100 Kqjiliblt Biiililitij: 

J- n <, I o «t t 1 Lexington 9-67ti0 

Court Keporlcrs fcaltiinjrt 2, Maryland ~ • 



9 



44 



^ MR. SCANLAN: Dick, I don't read the language 

^ to do this, but I wanted to get your view. Does the 

3 language , as you have suggested it there at the top of 

* Page 19 reading, may include property devoted to agri- 

5 cultural use, you don't intend by that in any way to 

® freeze the result of the Alsop case into the new Consti- 

^ t ution? In other words, the Legislature in the future 

® by uniform rules could decide whether or not property 
was devoted to agricultural use for the purpose of 

^^ obtaining the exemptions. 

^^ MR. CASE: That is exactly the purpose of it. 

^^- THE CliAIRMAN: Mr. Miller? 

1^ MR. MILLER: Under this language, would the 

^^ factors which you are probably familiar v;ith, certain 

15 municipal corporations will invite somebody over to the ne,7 

1^ factory and say. We will give you tax exemption for 

^'^ X-years if you V7ill employ so many people. Would that 

1® sort of thing be prohibited by this? 

19 MR. CASE: V7ell, Congressman Miller, exemptions 

from property taxes of that kind can only be permitted 
by direct act of the Legislature. This is done, for 



20 
21 



THE JACK SA! OMON RKrOSTiNG SERVICE 
lUO l:q..i:jLli: Euilc'iriK 
Court Reporuri BaUimorc 2, Maryland " 



45 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

15 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



example, in Allegbny - County, This is one of the better 
illustrations of it, and there is .-n exempt ion , I think, 
in Carroll County for nev; industry that comes into play. 
The purpose of this is to permit this if the Legislature 
wants to do it, but it has to be uniform throughout the 
State. 

MR. MILLER: But I v;as addressing my thought 
particularly to municipal taxes where a particular tov7n 
which has a real estate tax similar to the State and 
County tax says, VJell, if you \7ill build a factory here, 
or open a printing plant, or V7hatever it is, we will 
give you tax exemption so far as the City taxes are con- 
cerned for X-years . Nov;, would this prohibit that? I 
don't know, I have no brief either way. 

MR. CASE: Within the City, Congressman, it 
would be permitted from City taxes, but the point is that 
it V70uld have to be uniform within that City, so that 
if somebody else wanted to come in and get a similar 
exemption, they would be required to give them that cxemp' 
tion. 

MR. MILLER: But the neighboring City, if it 



Court Btporiera 



THE JACK SAIOMON BEPORTINC SERVICE 
100 EqiMiablr BiuMing 
Ballimcrc !, Maryla.id 



Lttint'on 9-6'60 



46 



^ didn't have that, wouldn't have to have it? 

^ MR. CASE: As to City taxes, wouldn't have 

^ to have it . 

^ THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Bothe? 

5 MRS. BOTHE: On this agricultural use inclu- 

" sion, is that being put in there only to show our respect 

'^ to the present Constitution, or in other words, could 

° agricultural land be classified as such without this 

^ language being in it? 

MR. CASE: Under the draft, it could be. 
^^ MRS. BOTHE: In other words, the purpose is 

simply to quiet the fears of those who don't believe it? 
MR. CASE: Correct. It is certainly a purpose 
^^ THE CHAIRl'lAN: Any further questions? 

15 Mr. Clagett? 

1^ MR. CLAGETT: However, this language does 

^^ not apply to the active use to which the land is being 

devoted, and it actually does permit ovmership being the 
criteria rather than the actual use of the land? 

MR. CASE: If the Legislature sets it aside. 
MR. CLAGETT: That is not so good. 



10 



12 
13 



18 
19 
20 
21 



THE JACK SAI vMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 E<;i.ildl.Ic BuiiJing 

Court R^poritn B«llinior< 2, Mar>UnJ Lexingion O-tTtO 



47 



1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Haile? 

2 MR. HAILE: Mr. Chairman, the present Section 

3 saj'S that, all taxes, State and County, shall be uniform 
^ within each classification or subclassif ication. I don't 
5 see that same language in the new proposed Section. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Which part, the State and 



6 



^ County part? 



8 



10 



20 



MR. HAILE: The part about, the new Section 



^ says, no assessment. 



MR. CASE: Let me answer that. It is very 



^^ important that it be left this way and not say taxes 

"'•^ because the word taxes in that Section is the thing that 

1^ got Article 15 way off the track and was off the track 

1^ for about twenty years in the State, longer than that. 

15 I will give you the reasons for it. 

16 In a case called Leser versus Lowenstein, 
1*^ the Court of Appeals in discuss i..^^ the question of 

18 v;hether or not parts of Section 15 were self -executing 

19 or not, said in effect, that this Section, meaning a 
part of 15, applies to taxes, picking out the v;ord you 



^1 have just picked out, and v;ent on to discuss the thing. 



THE JACK SALOMON PtPOrJTING SERVICE 

100 Eq.MitMr Biiil'^ing 
^ « r, ■ ■ n *■ I J Leiiniton 9-67tO 

Ccurt Rcperlcri ElItiR-.cre I. M.r)!-"" 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



48 



Later on, this matter was picked up in another decision by 

the Court of Appeals, called Rogan versus Calvert County, 

and the Court of Appeals held in that case or seemingly 

said in that case that Article 15 applies to taxes and 

not to assessments, and this led to the Attorney General 

ruling, a very long and extended opinion, that Article 

15 didn't apply to assessments so that you could have 

uneven assessments within a given area, that it only 

applied to the tax rate, taxes. 

This is perfect nonsense. The way to make the 

tax system fair is to have the base fair, the assessment 

fair. Once the assessment is fair, the rest will fall 

together. It was not until, I guess the Alsop case V7as 

it, that this v/as straightened out. In the Gales case, 

Jay Brohra, v7ho , of course, is a very smart guy, put this 

whole issue back in proper focus by saying that the Court 

would have been all wrong and the Attorney General had 

been v7rong if v^hat they said was, in effect, that Article 

15 shouldn't apply to assessments. He said really 

assessments is the heart of the tax program. We want 

this is 
to make it clear that/the equality of the assessment. 



k 



Court Riportvtt 



THE J\CK SAKJMON KF.PORTING SERVICE 
!00 E<)uitallc BuilOir.g 
Daltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltxinglon '>-t'60 



49 



MR. liiMlE : Well now, suppose the County V70uld 
impose one tax rate on the upper end of the County where 
^ the farmers live and another rate in the metropolitan 

area. Would that be legal under our new Constitution, tv;o 



4 



8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 



19 
20 
21 



^ different rates? 
6 

7 



MR. CASE: Let me say this: This is done, and 
it has been done in our County, so that, V7hich gives you 
another reason. In other words, quite obviously getting 
back to this point of like people being treated similar- 
ly in similar situations, the tax rate has got to be 
the same. Due process would require this unless there 
are sound legislative reasons for making it different. 
Nov/, in Baltimore County for a number of years, people 
in the metropolitan districts paid a larger rate of tax 
•"•^ than those in the rural parts of the County because the li 
■'■^ permitted the County Commissioners to impose a tax V7ith" 
■^' in the district to help service the water and sewer 

^° lines. This is perfectly all right, because people in 

the metropolitan district get a great deal more for their 
money than people living out in the rural areas. So, 
here was a perfect example of v/here you did have, indeed. 



THE JACK S'.IOMON liF.por.TlNG SEKViCE 

100 Eq utaMc Bu'Io'r.u 

Court Rrporuri Baltimore 2, Mir) land Lftintlon 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4- 

5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



50 



a Baltimore County tax rate. It used to come out on the 
same bill, $1.80 in T-ou^son and around $1 up. County. 

THE CHAIRJ'IAN: The same thing, of course, was 
true when the Baltimore City, follov/ing the new and next 
act in 1918 where you had the new annex gradually subjecte 
to the full City rate over a period of years. 

Mr. Scanlan? 

MR. SCANLAN: Dick, does the word, subclass, 
have a special term of art, an indispensable term of art 
that requires its inclusion? I would think the v^ord , 
class, would suffice. 

MR. CASE: Class, could be personal property, 
but then subclass could be v;hether it is inventory or 
stock in trade or something like that. It is a word of 
art which seems to be essential. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Martineau? 

MR. MARTINEAU: I wonder if the first part 
you say, no assessment, then in the last part with respect 
to agricultural use, you say, with respect to factors -- 
with respect to assessments on property, as to classes. 

MR. CASE: You have a good point there. 



Court fttportert 



THE J^CK SII.O.VON REPOKTING StR\ ICK 
100 Equiiablc Buililir.f 
Baltimon- 2, Marytrfnil 



Lexinfton «.6."60 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



51 



THE CHAIRl-lAN: You see v^here the change is, 
Page 19, second line, strike taxes, and insert, assess- 
ments . 

Mr. Sykes? 

MR. SYKES: I had a question that v;ent a little 
bit beyond that. Actually, the only thing that that last 
clause really talks about is real property, and it seems 
to me that any system of classification is going to 
include property devoted to agricultural use. The ques° 
tion isn't the impingement of that property, the question 
is the extent to which the fact of the property is 
destroyed to agricultural use may be made a basis for 
classification, and I am a little bit afraid of the 
point that I think Al Scanlan made, the v;ord , devoted 
to agricultural use, may be interpreted as having a 
fixed constitutional meaning, and I think it ought to be 
made perfectly clear that the Legislature can determine 
the extent to which classification may be based on the 
agricultural use of the real property; and I think that 
this could be accomplished by putting a period after the 
general classification provision, taxpayers property or 



Court Heporl*'rt 



THE J\CK S'.IOMO.N KKPORTINC SERVICE 
100 Equi'.jble Builiiing 
BjI;ir:ior«: 2. Maryljnil 



Leiinilon 9-4, "«0 



52 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



event as may be provided by law and saying, classification 
of real property may be based on agricultural use thereof 
as provided by lax-?. 

THE CHAIRI4AN: Since that suggestion has been 
made, I would like to make another comment; let me make 
it desirable not to make it use that language, and this 
is a matter that the Commission has got to consider very 
carefully and ought to have some discussion about. One 
of the real difficulties which this agricultural exemp- 
tion is designed, agricultural special assessment is 
designed to permit, indeed to encourage, is to not merely 
the use of land for agricultural purposes as a matter 
of good supply near the large metropolitan areas 
V7hich V7e mentioned as one of the reasons, but rather as 
a means of slowing down the complete utilization of all 
open area for improvements and all too often, unplanned 
and unwise improvements. 

So, V7hen you have a real estate developer who i[) 
looking ahead ten or fifteen years, goes out in the 
country and buys a large tract of land, if as soon as he 
does that, you begin to assess that land on the basis of 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON HF.POKTING SERVICt 
100 EqiMlable Building 
Baltimore 2. MarylanJ 



Leiinilon 9-6760 



4. 



53 



^ subdivision values, far beyond its rural value, then you 

^ put on that developer a pressure to iirmed lately utilize it 
3 for his highest purpose, its densest use than the one that 

would be most productive in dollars to hiin. It seems 
5 to me that this is a shortsighted public policy, and 
" V7hile as the Chairman of the Committee mentioned, this is 
''' not a question that this Commission should resolve, we 
° certainly do V7ant to make it abundantly clear that the 
^ Legislature has ample authority to permit lovjer assess- 
ments, tax advantage, if you want, on property that is a 
■^^ development of v;hich is delayed or deferred. In recent 

"^^' years there has been considerable feeling that there ought 
1^ to be special tax advantage and indeed, in some areas, 
^^ it is in effect today for v;hat are called, I think, view 
^^ easements where an ovrner of a large unimproved property 
1^' along a public highway, particularly the new expressways, 
^'^ non-access ways, in consideration of a reduction in 
^® taxes V7ill agree to maintain it, either his farmland 
^^ or open land vjithout billboards or buildings or residen- 
tial developments, and here again, this is a broad ques- 
tion of open policy that is one for the Legislature, but 



10 



20 

21 



THF. JACK SAIOMO.N KF.PORTINC 5ERVICK 
100 r.QiuuLle B.iil Ilr.^ 
Court Rtporliri Baltinort 2, MaryianJ 



LtMinflon 9-6roO 



1 

2 

3 

4- 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

15 

14- 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



54 



I think it behooves us to make certain there isn't any 
question at all about the Legislature's power to do 
this. 

My only concern with this last clause is 
that by referring specifically to agricultural use, it 
may tend to permit the argument that the Legislature 
can't classify merely on an open land use. And it seems 
to me that the phrase, and this would follow somev;hat the 
suggestion that Mr. Sykes made, that the phrase ought 
to be broad enough to make it abundantly clear that 
the Legislature can authorize assessment of taxes on 
land with a view to deferring or delaying the urbaniza- 
tion of that land until better planning can provide for 
it. 

Mrs. Bo the? 

MRS. BOTHE: Mr. Chairman, in view of your 
comments, and the answer to a question which \ws raised 
earlier, I would m.ove that that clause be deleted entire- 
ly, that is after provided by lav;, the following provision 
because it is only an invitation to the problem that you 
suggest as well as giving no added protection to the 



Court RcpOTtprt 



T)lt J\CK SVlCMON P.F.POiniN'J SERVICE 
100 Eq.i.tahU Duil.Iing 
Ballinicre 2, Miir>Iand 



Lexington 9'67f>0 



I 



1 

2 

3 

4 



5 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

15 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



55 



classification of agricultural land. X think if we 
make it clear in our work book and records that our in- 
tention was not to be, repeal Article 43 in reference 
to agricultural differentiation, that this would suffice, 
and that we need not clutter up the Constitution v/ith 
it. Besides, I think, long before the Constitution wears 
out that this whole question of extra taxation for sub- 
divisions is going to be inaccurate. It isn't like 
paupers, taxed, and I hate to see something of this kind 
go into a streamlined Constitution. For that reason, 
I v/ill move the last phrase be deleted. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I V7ill put your motion down, 
but I did not mean to suggest that the phrase doesn't 
add anything. I think as to agricultural use, there is. 

Is there a second? Any second? The motion 
fails for lack of second. 

Mr. Sykes , did you want to make any further 
comment with respect, or a motion with respect to your 
suggested language? 

MR. SYFvES: I V7ould like to move that the last 
sentence be rewritten and put a period after the V70rd , law 



k 



Court Reporttrt 



THf. JACK S',f-C'\;ON RF.FOKTINC SEKVICK 
100 F.ci'iiiaLIe Buillini! 
Boltinicre 2, Maryljn I 



Lexington 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4- 

5 
6 
7 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12. 
15 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



56 



And that a sentence be added in substance to say, vjithout 
limiting the power of the Legislature to classify on 
other grounds, the classification of real property may 
be based on agricultural use thereof as provided by lav;, 
or some such formulation. 

MR. CASE: No. 

THE CHAT.Rl'IAN: Is there a second? 

MR. CASE: Let me merely say -- no second? 

THE CHAIRI'IAN: Apparently not. 

MR. CASE: The Committee rewrote this language 
at least four times, trying to come up with something 
that would be proper and acceptable and not, you knov7, 
that it couldn't be better a fifth time. But this is 
really a tough little technical problem here, just how 
to get this worded property, and I can say that this v:as 
the best judgment we could come up with. Now, we did not, 
I will say tha , we did not consider the Chairman's 
suggestion that perhaps to broaden this constitutional 
provision to deal with open spaces such other than agri- 
cultural because I think we felt, at least I feel this 
way, and I V70uld hope the Corrjr.it tee Members v;ould 



L 



Court Hvport^i 



THE J-^CK S,\\.ny.aS RFPORTING SERVICE 
100 EoMitalile BuiWir.g 
BEltimort 2, Mar-;Isr.J 



Icii'nj/on 9t7M 



57 



1 agree that the power to subclass ify as stated in the 

2 first part vjould be sufficiently broad to take care of 

3 that. 
^ THE CHAIRMAN; Would it hurt your last clause 

5 if you said, agricultural or other open land use? 

6 MR. CLAGETT: I was going to say, Mr. Chair- 
'5' man, or open space use. 

8 MR. CASE: I think it would do the trick if 

5 the Commission v;ould like it. 

^^ THE CHAIRMAN: I think there ought to be some 

^^ discussion of this point. 

^^ Mr. Clagett? 

^^ MR. CLAGETT: I make a motion that the vroi^ds , c[r 

1^ open space, ba added at the end of that sentence. 

^^ DR. BARD: To agricultural use, or open space 

16 use. 

1'7 THE CHAIPJ^IAN: We could say agricultural or 

18 open Space. 

1^ MR. CLAGETT: That reads better. 

2^ THE CHAIRIIAN: Is there a second? 

2^ DR. BARD: I second it. 



TJit JACK S«.LO\ION KEPO::': l.NC SERVICE 

100 K.uiiabl^ Building 

Court Rtporteri Eahir.orc 2. Mar>Ui.J twinf/on 9-6.Vrt 



58 



1 
2 



THE CHAIRI'IAN; Discussion 



Mr. Bond? 



5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



MR. BOND: I apologize for being late, but 
1 was on the Committee that considered this language, 
and therefore, I am asking your indulgence V7hile I do 
discuss the matter a little bit. On our point, Mr. Eney, 
about the liiTiiting language to agricultural, I have two 
comments. First, you have the v;ord , may, v;hich it seems 
to me is permissive and can go a lot further and second, 
again on the matter of public policy, on hov7 the people 
have spoken and the political nuances which surround this 
proposed nGV7 Constitution, Mr. Case, I am sure has given 
the history of the desires of the people of this State 
that agriculture be given a specific niche in the Consti- 
tution. They haven't spoken as to openspaces , although 
I think it is very commendable. A perfect example is 
the area across from Mount Vernon which could go into 
smokestacks if we are not careful. I wonder about -- 
we may have something other than open spaces which 
probably hasn't occurred to other Members of the Commis- 
sion, and I feel it might be better to leave it as pro- 



Court Rtporlers 



THE JACK S\T.OMON KF.PORTINC SERVICE 
100 Etjuitahlc DuU.Iing 
Baltimorr 2, Maryland 



Lexinfton 9-6760 



59 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



posed by the Conimittee because you do have the permis- 
sive, may, and also the fact that the people have spoken 
if they do v/ant agriculture given special consideration. 

THE CHAIRI'IAN: Dr. Bard? 

DR. BARD: I think the concept of open space 
is one that is highly important in the 1960's and in a 
sense, it vjould reflect some of our concerns which are 
so very vivid in this area, particularly in regard to 
planning, et cetera, and I think that it would move us 
to more m.odern view if we did include it. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? 

MR. SCAKLAN: As we recall the law of zoning, 
similar in the field of taxation, the open space concept 
is a novel one and possibly the permissive, may, the 
Court V70uld say it may include, and on the other hand, 
it may not include, open space land. I hadn't thought 
about it before I came here this morning, and I think 
the additional phrase would be helpful. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? Ready 
for the question? The question arises on the motion to 
amend the proposed Section appearing at the bottom of 



Court Htporuri 



THF. J^CK S-MOMON KKPCRTir-iC SERVICE 
100 tquilatle Biiiliiini! 
tjllir.or- 2. Ma-ylanJ 



Leiinglon 9-6' 60 



60 



Page 18, top of Page 19, by striking out the last v;orcl , 
use, and substituting therefor the phrase, for open 
^ space use. All those in favor, please signify by saying 

Aye. 



4 



^ (Chorus of Ayes .) 



6 
7 



10 
11 
12 



THE CHAIRI^IAN: Contrary, No. The Ayes have 
it. 
® .MR. SYKES : Mr. Chairman, I have a question. 

Was any action taken on tfhe suggestion about the use of 
the word, taxes? The v7ord , taxes, is being eliminated? 

THE CHAIRxMAN: The top of Page 1 in the second 
line, the word, taxes, was stricken, and the v;ord , assess- 

^^ ments, substituted. 

^^ MR. SYKES: I v7onder if he would need that, 

^^ just v^ith respect to property. It is really real proper- 
ty. You have exemption and got the whole business. 

^"^ THE CHAIPvMAN: I wonder if you couldn't take 

^•^ out the whole phrase, with respect, and say, in such 

^^ classes, 

^^ MR. CASE: You can. 

^^ THE CHAIPJIAN: In the absence of objection, we 



16 



THE J^CK S\L')MON nF.I'OUT INO SERVICE 

100 EqiulaliU Building 

Court Reporu,. Baltimore 2. M.ryland Lexinfior, 9-6:6.7 



61 



1 will strike the whole phrase, with respect to taxes on 

2 property, so the Section V70uld read , aid such classes 

3 may include such property devoted to agricultural and 
4: open space use. 

5 Dr. Burdette? 

6 DR. BURDETTE: I have a related question. I 

7 don't know what would happen if somebody v/anted to argue, 

8 if it V7ere brought up that this language coming, and 

9 such classes may include such property devoted to agri- 

10 cultural or open space use, if the argument v;ere directed 

11 to the view that agricultural use and open space use 

12 must be in the other classes. I think the language can 

13 be so read. It is certainly not intended. Much of my 

14 commentary here comes from my observation that courts 

15 get new meanings of land as years go by. 

16 THE ClIAIRl'IAN: I don't follow your question 

17 at all, Dr. Burdette. 

18 DR. BURDETTE: I gather the intent of the 

19 Committee and the Commission is that there may be clas- 

20 sification for agricultural use or for open space use. 

21 THE CHAIR>L^N: Right. 



Court Ri'poritrc 



THE JACK S*'OMON REPORTING SEIHVICI 
TOO Kqt'Jtjbte Buil.Iing 
Baltimore 2, Mar>l-^nJ 



Lexington 9-bTtO 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



62 



DR. BURDETTE: The language actually says, 
such classes. Nov?, these are the classes already men- 
tioned, I suppose. Such, carries that, may include 
property devoted, so this property may be put in the 
other class which, of course, on its face is redundancy. 

THE CIlAIRiMAN: Is your suggestion that the word 
should be, classification, instead of, classes? 

DR. BURDETTE: V/ell, yes, such classification, 
would help it. My ovm language, I am not competent to 
draft the technical language. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Isn't the question one of 

style rather than substance? 

very quickly 
DR. BURDETTE: Yes, it is, but still/gets over 

the change of meaning. I don't think Mr. Case follows 

what I am speaking about. 

MR. CASE: You have lost me. Professor. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I think the substance of what 
you say could be met by the use of the V70rd , classifica- 
tion, instead of, classes, and I don't imagine the 
Chairman of the Committee would have any objection to 
that. You may have to rephrase one or two of the other 



Court Reporten 



THE JACK SALOMON RtTORTI.NC SERVICE 
100 ETilubk Bui;. ling 
Balliniorr 7, Maryland 



Lmintlon 9-6760 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 

15 
14 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



63 



words, and I think we better leave it to the Coramittee 
on Style. It is just a question of whether the last 
phrase providing that, classes, includes, property 
devoted to agricultural use, means that that is included 
within one of the previous classes. 

MR. SYKES: Mr. Chairman, there is a little 
more than a question of style, because you use, classes, 
and subclasses, up above, and here you say, such classes 
may include property devoted to these things, and 
the provision may be read to mean that there has to be a 
unitarian class to property devoted to agricultural use. 
You can't subclassify within that class, and I think 
it is important to talk about the basis of classification 
rather than V7hat the classes do. 

THE CHAIRMAN: V/ell, do you have any specific 
language to suggest? You can't do it by substituting 
the word, classification, for classes, because you wouldn' 
say, classification may include. 

MR. SYKES: This may be a last gasp, I made a 
suggestion, and it didn't get a second, what I mean is, 
that such classification may be based as provided by law 



Ltxint'on 9-67M 



Court Reporters 



laO EqwiIabU Buililir? 
Baltinicre 2, Mar>la.ii 





64 




1 


DR. BURDETTE: That is much clearer. That 




2 


just says something flatly. 




3 


MR. CASE: It is not clear to me, and it is not 




4 


the existing language. 




5 


MR. SYICES: Well, neither is this. 




6 


MR. CASE: It is fairly close. I would say 




7 


that you might say such classes or subclasses. 




8 


MR. SYICES: That v/ould be better. 




9 


DR. BURDETTE: Yes, it would. 




10 


THE CHAIRI^IAK: V7ould that be acceptable. 




11 


such classes or subclasses? 




12 


MR. SYKES: I think so. 




13 


THE CHAIR1>IAN: Dr. Burdette? 




14 


DR. BURDETTE: It is still subject to reading 




15 


tV70 ways, and maybe that is intended. There is a great 




16 


redundancy here. The first part of the Section says --• 




17 


MR. CASE: Let me interrupt, Professor Bur- 




18 


dette, by saying it is an intentional redundancy here. 




19 


That is the point I don't think you got. , 




20 


DR. BURDETTE: I understand there is. 




21 


MR. CASE: With that correction you can argue 


'■■ 




THE JACK SALOMON KF.pOKTINC SERVICE 

100 Equilable Bui'Jin? 

Courl fl.p,rur, HM^OTt 2. iUn'^nd i«injfon f -6. fO 



65 



1 against the redundancy, but there is an intentional 

2 redundancy for reasons I have stated. 

3 DR. BURDETTE: You see the purpose of the 

4 redundancy is to give the Legislature a hint of the in- 

5 tent of the f ramer . 

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. 

7 DR. BURDETTE: Well, if you are just going to 

8 take the redundancy in its simplest term, it says, 

9 agricultural property may be put in with urban property 

10 which still is possible under this arrangement, but if 

11 it says no more than that, it almost says no more 

12 than that to me. It doesn't quite clearly say. It says, 

13 may be separate from urban property. Unless we get in 

14 subclasses, but even then, I think it almost needs some 

15 language as, may include separate classification of 

16 property devoted to agricultural or open space usage. 

17 But that is not legal language. 

18 MR. SYKES: Mr. Chairman, I point out that 

19 the current language of the Constitution speaks about 

20 the assessment on the basis of a certain type of use, and 

21 that the language I suggested would carry forward much 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 EqaiUtU Building 
, _ n I ■ n «< I J L€xinglon 9-6760 

Court Keporleri Baltimore 2, Mar-yljiid * 







66 






1 


more than the present language. 






2 


THE CHAIRMAN: Let's have your suggestion 






3 


again. 






4 


MR. SYKES: And such classification may be 






5 


based upon the agricultural or open space use of property. 






6 


THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second? 






7 


DR. BURDETTE: Would that include the subclassi 


- 




8 


fication? 






9 


MR. SYKES: Such classification would include 






10 


then classes and subclasses. 


• 




11 


THE CHAIRMAN: You second, Dr. Burdette? 






12 


DR. BURDETTE: I second. 






13 


THE CHAIRMAN: Give us the language again. 






14 


And such classification -- 






15 


MR. SYKES: — may be based upon agricultural 






16 


or open space use of property. 






17 


THE CHAIRMAN: Any comment, Mr. Case? 






18 


MR. CASE: No, I think the Committee has 






19 


worked hard on this language, and thinks it ought to be 






20 


the way it is written here, and I will let it go to a 






21 


vote . 








THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Er.iiUable BuiKling 

Court Keporieri Baltimore 2. M.oUnd Ltxintion 9-6760 


\ 






. »■" 


' 





67 




1 


MR. SCANLAN: I think the phrase, may be 




2 


based on, is less permissive than the phrase, may include. 




3 


and I think he may be drawing the more narrow proviso. 




4 


THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller? 




5 


MR. MILLER: I don't follow too much this 




6 


argument about classes and subclasses. It would seem 




7 


to me in our effort to shorten things if we just struck 




8 


out the first two words on the next to last line and 




9 


went on as provided by law and may include property, et 




10 


cetera. Then, that would include all the classes you 




11 


want to put it to. 




12 


MR. SYKES: If Mrs. Bothe will make her motion 




13 


again, I think maybe I would second it. 




14 


THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? 




15 


MR, MILLER: I will move to substitute an 




16 


amendment to just strike out, such classes, the first two 




17 


words on the next to the last line. 




18 


THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second to the sub- 




19 


stitute? 




20 


DR. BURDETTh: I would be inclined to second 




21 


that. I am a little afraid of this language. 

TUT? r'UATpMAM* T" fhrro n "rrnnH for tho 






100 Equitable Building 
Court H.porie,, B.Ilin.irt 2. MaryUnJ Uxin,lon 9-6760 





68 



1 substitute motion? If not, the substitute fails for 

2 lack of a second. Any further discussion on Mr. Sykes ' 

3 motion? Ready for the question? Mr. Sykes' motion is 

* to amend the Section by putting a period after the word, 
5 law, in the second line on Page 19; I am sorry -- strik- 
^ ing everything after the comma after the word, law, in 
^ the second line on Page 19 and substituting the follow- 

° ing phrase: And such classification may be based upon 

^ agricultural or open space use of property. All those in 
^^ favor, please signify by a show of hands. Contrary? 
The motion is lost, 3 to 16. 
Mr. Bond? 

^^ MR. BOND: I would like to make one further 

^^ point that use can be both agricultural — 
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me interrupt you a moment. 

1^ I want to make clear that it is my understanding that 
^^ prior to the other motion, there was no objection to 

the addition of the phrase, for subclasses, after the 
word, classes, in the third line on Page 19. Does any- 
body object to that? If not, we will consider that 



11 
12 



18 
19 
20 



^1 change as made, so that the last phrase now presently 

before you is . — and s uch clas s e s or subcla s se s may include 

t/wj.vi. w ^-cro ^^•'i " THE JACK SXfOMO.N EEPOariNC SERVICE ^ 

100 Eqiiitahle BuiMi.iK 
C»url Rtporttrt Biltin:ore 2. M.nlind UMuifion 96:6(3 



■ I 



69 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



property devoted to agricultural or open space use. 
Now, Mr. Bond? 

MR. BOND: I would like to point out for the 
record that agricultural and open space usages are not 
in the alternative, and the word, or, leads to redundancy 
and vagueness . You can have open space use and agricul- 
tural use on the same piece of land. 

THE CHAIRMAN: It seeras to me if you use the 
word, and, then you would have more trouble. 

MR. CASE: I think his statement for the rec- 
ord is all you need. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further comment with res- 
pect to this Section? I would like to make just two 
observations so that the record will be abundantly clear. 
In the use, in this Section of the phrase, any tax imposed 
in this State, I take it, Mr. Case, that the Committee 
is recommending that this provision of the Constitution 
be applicable to taxes imposed at every level of govern- 
ment . 

MR. CASE: That is correct. 

THE CHAIRMAN: State, local, municipal, every- 



Court Reporten 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuilJing 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



it^xington 9-6760 



1 t 



4 



70 



^ thing. 

^ MR. CASE: That is correct. 

^ THE CHAIRMAN: Secondly, you commented in 

answer to somebody's question with respect to an exemp- 

^ tion that it is possible today if it be permitted by 

6 

the Legislature. Now, if the Commission approves the 

tentative Report of the Committee on Political Subdivis- 
ions, the County and other local subdivisions will have 
full taxing powers except as withdrawn, so that this 
would permit Counties, and if they in turn permit 
municipalities, permit municipalities to grant special 
exemptions such as manufacturers' exemptions or indus- 
trial exemptions of various kinds. I take it your answer 
to the earlier question is still the same, that the 
^^ Counties' right to do that, notwithstanding the broad 
^^ grant of power under the Constitution to local subdivision 
^"^ will be subject to the limitation of this Section, that 
it must be a reasonable classification for all such 
exemptions . 

MR. CASE: That is right. 

MRS. BOTHE: A question to Mr. Case: This 



7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 



18 
19 
20 
21 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 F.r,uiljbl. Building 

Court Rfporlert Ealliniori: 2, Maryland Ltxinilon 9-t760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



71 



means about sixty exemptions granted to the Elks Lodge, 
or the Workmen's Home and whatever it is, would be uncon- 
stitutional. 

MR. CASE: Not sixty, but there are some. 

MRS. BOTHE: How many? 

MR. CASE: About a half dozen. 

DR. BARD: Can I ask a question, Mr. Case? 
There would be no problem, for example, in respect to 
exemptions of persons because of their age and property 
and wealth? 

MR. CASE: That would be as classification. 



DR. BARD 



MR. CASE 



Just wanted to know. 



Article III, the lottery. That 
starts on Page 25. It is happy for me that we can get 
into a broad plateau here of philosophical concepts 
rather than just whether you are going to express some- 
thing one way or the other. Here we are talking about the 
lottery because Article III says that no lottery grant 
shall ever hereafter be authorized by the General Assem- 
bly. This raises the question of whether or not you 
want your Constitution to prohibit a lottery. Very 



Court Rtportttt 



THE JACK SAL0?.10.N REPORTING SERVICE 
100 EquitjbU Duildint 
Bahirrorc 2, Mir)'Und 



Ltxinflon 9-6760 





72 




1 


briefly, the background on lotteries is siraply this: 




2 


Lotteries are as ancient as most anything you can really 




3 


think about that have been brought forward into modern 




4 


day living. Historians say the lottery was first begun 




5 


in Italy and a great many of the public buildings at 




6 


that time, the canals, and so on, were financed in that 




7 


country by the lottery. In England in the early 17th 




8 


Century, lotteries became very fashionable with the people 




9 


who particularly, the merchants who sold their goods 




10 


through lotteries, and the East India Company was well 




11 


recognized in this area until the Crown decided that 




12 


one of the things that could perhaps finance the improve- 




13 


ment of the various harbors there was to get a cut out 




14 


of these lotteries. So they did exactly that. In this 




15 


country, the concept of the lottery has been thought to 




16 


have been an antecedent of the ones I have just mentioned, 




17 


and it is very interesting to note the great amount of 




18 


public finance that was done in the early period of time 




19 


in our country through the lottery. 




20 


Now, our Committee held a hearing with respect 




21 


to whether or not this provision should be retained, and 






THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTING SERVICE 

100 Eq'jilable EuiMing 

Court R.porler, B.Ilimort 2, Maryland t.«nfro» 9-6:60 










73 






1 


at that hearing and through our research, it was developed 






2 


that such things as the Cathedral, Catholic Cathedral 






3 


in Baltimore was built partly with the proceeds of a 






4 


lottery. Several of the buildings on the University of 






5 


Maryland campus, Baltimore City, were financed through 






6 


the proceeds of a lottery. Other public buildings and 






7 


attributes were similarly financed, but in the middle 






8 


1840 's and I am not talking about the 1800 's, the 






9 


- 

lottery got to be a racket because the way it was run 






10 


was that the Legislature would make lottery grants 






11 


and people would have the right therefore to put on lot- 






12 


teries with the Government getting its cut. A con- 






13 


certed effort was made and finally culminated, I think, 






14 


in the middle 1840 's to abandon, to provide that there 






15 


should be no further lottery grants. Now, whether or 






16 


not this prohibition means merely the right to hold a 






17 


lottery and that it doesn't proscribe the State from 






18 


holding a lottery is an issue that has been greatly 






19 


debated. The only real authority on the subject is an 






20 


opinion of the Attorney General of Maryland, which says 






21 


that the ban applies to the State conducting a lottery 








THE JACK SM.OMO.N REFORTINC SERVICE 

100 Equitable BuilJing 

Cour, Reperler, B.ltinor, 2. M.rykad Uxiifion 9-6.-60 





74 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 
6 
7 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



as well as to the giving or issuing of lotterygrants. 
The principal witness at our hearing, I guess everybody 
knows who that was, who came complete with television 
cameras from three stations, to wit, Mr. Hyman Pressman, 
argued with some degree of persuasiveness, I thought, 
that the word, lottery grant, did not proscribe the 
State, and indeed, the State could at any time conduct a 
lottery under the present Constitution. But he strongly 
suggested that this matter was not one of constitutional 
dimension, and that the question of whether or not there 
should be a lottery in the State and run by the State 
as a way or method of gaining revenues for the State 
should in the last analysis be left to the Legislature 
and should, therefore, be removed as an absolute pro- 
hibition from the Constitution. 

Now, there is just no question about the fact 
that a lottery is a substitute or a method of financing 
government. It is something that is evasive as anything 
can be, and really it is for this reason that I think 
every man on the Committee opposes a lottery and the 
recommendation that is being made here does not mean to 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuilJing 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltxinilon 9 6r60 



•■. ' I 







75 






1 


imply that anybody is in favor of the lottery. I want 






2 


that clearly understood. A lottery cannot be a supplier 






3 


of public revenues with any degree of assurance. There 






4 


is one lottery in this country today, in the State of 






5 


New Hampshire which is a financial failure, and people 






6 


who rely upon the lottery are afraid lotteries willl^riot^-be 






7 


and 
allowed because thtey will lose a lot of money, /are taking 






8 


the people down the primrose path. 






9 


I think if I might take a minute of your time 






10 


to read to you the very interesting, the summation of a 






11 


very interesting article which is v^ry recent, appearing 






12 


in last month's issue of The Taxes, which is a tax maga- 






13 


zine and written by an economist in New Hampshire. 






14 


The article is called, The Lottery as a Source 






15 


of Public Revenue. He approached this from the economic 






16 


as wellas social ground and particularly did he approach 






17 


it on the question of the economic value or utility of 






18 


money. It proved conclusively that a lottery is a de- 






19 


lusion and a snare which should be avoided. He says, and 






20 


I am quoting, The lottery as a substitute for or addition- 






21 


al to usual sources of public revenue not only fails to 






■ 


THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable BuiWing 

Court Reporur, B.Itinore 2. M.rylanJ Ltxinglcn 9.«:60 





76 



1 
2 

5 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



elicit support from economic theory, it also founders 
on the standards customarily applied to measure tax 
efficiency. 

First, the principle of allocating efficiency 
is violated in two ways. A, it is violated by charging 
a customer a price for the service represented by the 
lottery ticket in excess of cost, including social cost. 
The marginal conditions for the efficiency of resource 
allocation are bypassed. The equimarginal principle, 
applies the marginal social cost of raising the revenue 
by the tax, must be equal. 

B, those who buy lottery tickets may be in- 
duced to save less in anticipation of winning a future 
prize, thereby affecting the supply of investment goods 
relative to consumer goods. 

Second, the burden of the lottery is inequit- 
able because lower income groups buy more than a propor- 
tionate share of the tickets. Moreover, the distribution 
of prices increases income and equality. A recent survey 

in the State of Massachusetts of the residents of that 

the 
State who had won in/New Hampshire lottery, concluded 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Eqiiilnble Building 
Biltin-ore 2, Mar)'^"J 



Ltxintlon 9-6T00 



77 



that four out of five of those who could leest afford to 
gamble bought the tickets. Because of its propinquity 

* and relatively large population, Massachusetts buys 

more New Hampshire lottery tickets and has more winners 

^ than any other State. 

Third, the cost of collecting net revenues froir 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 



the lottery are very high compared to most types of 
taxes. In addition to enticing amounts of prize money, 
there is the special factor of expensive administration 
in an activity noted for its appeal to the underworld. 
Four, net revenues could be expected to in- 
crease during recession and decrease during recovery 
because of the desire to gamble during rate of high 
unemployment . It may be concluded that the lottery is in 
^^ the broadest sense an inefficient means of raising pub- 

lie revenues . 

17 

Our Committee developed all of these facts 

18 

and the facts that appear in the Report, and the matter 

I have just read to you does not appear in the Report, 
but I think it is instructive and interesting and should 
be brought to your attention, but it concluded neverthe- 



19 
20 
21 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 £(|uitAble Buililing 

Court Kepotler, B.ltiniore 2. Maryland Lexin,ion 9-6:60 





78 




1 


less that the question of the prohibition of the lot- 




2 


tery should be left to the General Assembly, and it is 




3 


for this reason therefore, that the Report recommends 




4 


that Article III, Section 36 be eliminated. 




5 


THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions. 




6 


MRS. FREEDLANDER: I want to ask Mr. Case a 




7 


question. Could a Governor in an emergency situation by 




8 


executive order permit a lottery? 




9 


MR. CASE: Well, I don't think that he could 




10 


now. Certainly not in the present stance of our Consti- 




11 


tution. If this is eliminated, I don't think I would -- 




12 


t would doubt it very seriously. 




13 


THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Haile? 




14 


MR. HAILE: I have a question arising out of 




15 


my ignorance, I suppose. Could a lottery bill or act be 




16 


framed so as to be a tax measure to meet the budget? 




17 


MR. CASE: Well, it could never be a tax 




18 


because an elephant can't be a giraffe, and a lottery 




19 


can't be a tax, but it can be a revenue-raising measure 




20 


because both an elephant and giraffe run through the 




21 


jungle and maybe they could go both on the s'Sfme path. 






THE JACK SALOMON KEPCRTINC SERVICE 

ICO Equitable Building 

Court Rfporuf. Bjltimor. 2, Mar>I>nd Uxintlon 9-(,:60 







79 




1 


They can both go in the same direction, but they are 




2 


not exactly alike. 




3 


DR. JENKINS: Does that mean Yes or No? 




4 


MR. CASE: In my business, that means neither. 




5 


MR. MILT.KR: Isn't a lottery fundamentally 




6 


a voluntary thing? You couldn't pass a law making it 




7 


voluntary. 




8 


MR. CASE: That is right. 




9 


MR. MINDEL: We ought to be very careful on 




10 


this. If this comes out, the public is going to 




11 


erroneously think this Commission favors a lottery, and I 




12 


think we have to be careful about any statements issued. 




13 


I think the average person might get the wrong impres- 




14 


sion. If this Commission comes out and says we favor 




15 


the elimination of this provision, then we might be favor- 




16 


ing a lottery and Mr. Case clearly explained we were not. 




17 


MR. HOFF: Someone might wish to make political 




18 


hay out of this, too. 




19 


THE CHAIRMAN: I take it what the Committee is 




20 


saying is that they are expressing no opinion on the 




21 


broad moral question, if you want to call it a moral 


-• 




THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

Court Reporter. Baltimore 2. Marj Und Lexi,,,lon 9.6760 



1 ' 



4: 



80 



^ question, as to whether there should be lotteries but 

they are expressing a decided opinion that there should 
^ not be lotteries for the purpose of raising revenues 

for the operation of State Government. 
5 Mr. Scanlan? 

MR, SCANLAN: In recommending the deletion of 
* this provision, I think the Committee is acting in 
® accordance with the observation of Mr. Justice Holmes 
^ who said if the people of the United States want to go 
straight to hell, I doubt if there is anything in the 
Constitution that can stop them. If the people of the 
State of Maryland want a lottery, they will have a lot- 
tery. 

^^ THE CHAIRMAN: Any more discussion? 

15 Dr. Burdette? 

1^ DR. BURDETTE: You are making this by unanimous 

1' consent, and while I will not raise an objection, I 
1® should like to be on record that I should like to have the 
1^ Constitution of Maryland prohibit a lottery and would so 
recommend to the citizenry, and I do that on moral 
grounds as a person. 



10 
11 
12 
13 



20 
21 



THE JACK S'Kl.OMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 
- „ - ... 11 I J Ltiintlon 9-6760 

Court Reporttrt Eallimore 2, ManUno 



81 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
16 
16 
17 
16 
19 
20 
21 



THE CHAIRMAN: Any further comment? 

MR. CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman, I think it might 
be well to move that, and I make this in the form of a 
motion so that if Dr. Burdette or anyone else feels on 
any ground that they would rather oppose, they will have 
a chance to do so. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Rather what? I didn't catch 
your words. 

MR. CLAGETT: I was suggesting we present 
this in the form of a motion in that anyone who might 
want to oppose it on the ground stated by Dr. Burdette 
or any other ground, would have a chance to do so on his 
vote. 

THE CHAIRMAN: What is your motion? 

MR. CLAGETT: That the recommendation of the 
Committee that there be no such prohibition as presently 
contained in the Constitution be approved, be adopted. 

MR. GENTRY: I second it. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? Ready 
for the question? All those in favor, signify by saying 
Aye. Contrary, No. 



Court Reporlera 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuiMin$ 
Bultimore 2, Maryland 



Ltxington 9-6760 





82 




1 


DR. BURDETTE: No. 




2 


THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Burdette, do you want to 




3 


be recorded as No? 




4 


DR. BURDETTE: Yes. 




5 


THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else want to have their 




6 


vote recorded by name? 




7 


JUDGE WALSH: I want to have mine recorded 




8 


as being opposed. I don't know what the motion was. I 




9 


am voting against the authority to give the Legislature 




10 


the authority. 




11 


THE CHAIRMAN: Then your vote will be against 




12 


the authority. Any further discussion? Move on to the 




13 


next one. 




14 


MR. CASE: The next two things are really -- 




15 


I think can be handled quite shortly or quite briefly. 




16 


On Page 29 you will find a rather long provision of the 




17 


Constitution, which deals with the site of the property 




18 


and where it can be taxed, and I think it is tremendously 




19 


interesting and for those of you who have not had an 




20 


opportunity to read the material at the bottom of Page 29, 




21 


Page 30 and the top of 31, and while these V70rds were 






THE JACK saOMO:') REPORTING SERVICE 

ICO Equllabif Building 

Court Reporitt, Baltimore 2. M.riUnd Ltiiitflon 9-6:60 

\ '' 



"I 



83 



^ uttered one hundred years ago, I think they conceivably 

2 could have been said yesterday, Mr. Sachs wants me 

3 to read these, and I would like to, but X know time is 
^ getting ahead of us here. They are great words. 

5 Actually, Ladies and Gentlemen, the question of sites 
^ in tax matters is a legislative rathan than a constitu- 
''' tional problem. In Article 18, I think it is Section 8 
9 or 9, now controls the status of where property shall 
^ be taxed and there have been changes in these concepts 
^^ through the years. The protection that people have in 
^^ this regard is, of course, a fundamental protection of 
J-2 due process and equal protection of the laws which are 
15 carried in other broader language than dealing specifical- 
ly ly with tax or tax matters. We therefore recommend that 

15 the material on Page 29 be eliminated. 

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions? Any comment? 

17 If not, we will move on to the next, which I think is the 
1® final recommendation. 

19 MR. CASE: The final recommendation is that 

the State shall pass no law providing for payment by this 
State for slaves, et cetera, and I think that needs no 



20 
21 



THE JACK SALOMON BF.POKTINC SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

. „ ». I J Ltxintlon 9-6.60 

Court Reporlrrt Ealtiirore 2, MjryUnd 



84 



1 more comment than the Coimiittee has given it there, 

2 six words . 

3 THE CHAIEMAN: Any questions? Any comment? 
^ If not, that concludes the consideration of the Report 

5 of the Committee on Finance. 

6 The next Report is that of the Sixth Report 

7 of the Committee on the Judiciary Department, given to 

8 you this morning. 

9 May I have your attention for just a moment, 
10 please? As you will recall, at the last meeting, the 
H motion was made that the Section 3 of the draft proposed by 

12 the Committee on Miscellaneous Provisions be referred 

13 back to the Committee for reconsideration with the request 
14: that the Committee submit at the next meeting of the 

15 Commission a redraft of Section 3 which provides for the 

16 University of Maryland something less than the complete 

17 autonomy provided by the present Section 3 and that this 

18 be made the special order of business at the next meeting 

19 of the Commission. That matter will be the special order 

20 of business as soon as we reconvene following lunch, 

21 You have had handed to you or are now having 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Bui!Jing 
^ M n 1 • A i« I J Lfxintlon 9-6'60 

Court Hepottert Baltimore 2, Maryland * 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



85 



handed to you two things -- one is a memo called 
Special Report by the Committee on Miscellaneous Provis- 
ions. The other is a draft prepared by me yesterday of 
a proposed Section. Would you please take both of those 
with you at lunchtime and look them over with these 
throughts in mind. The Committee on Miscellaneous Pro- 
visions does not recommend any one of the provisions that 
are in the memo that is their Special Report. I have 
no idea what their feelings would be as to the draft I 
prepared because they haven't seen it until just now. 
As soon as we resume after lunch for a reconsideration 
of this matter, I will recognize Mrs. Bothe to present 
the Special Report briefly and discuss with the Commission 
the problems and the difficulties the Committee has had 
in preparing these drafts and the reasons why the Com- 
mittee does not recommend any one of them. 

The Committee then desires to move for a re- 
consideration of the vote by which Section 3 was deleted 
previously. Under our practice, since this is a motion 
by the Committee, it will be put to a vote without debate 
depending upon the action taken on that vote, we will 



Court Heportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, MarjIanJ 



Ltxinilon 9-6760 



,md 



86 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



then proceed. Now, I want to make it clear that this 
does not mean that there will not be any discussion and 
debate. You can have that freely, but I will recognize 
Mrs. Bothe as Chairman of the Committee to move for a 
reconsideration of the previous vote before recognizing 
anyone else to make any other motions. 

Now, unless there is some objection, that is 
the procedure we will follow after lunch. 

MR. CASE: In other words, so that I under- 
stand it, Mrs. Bothe will make the motion, and it will 
be seconded? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Doesn't have to be since it is 
a Committee motion under our Special Rules. 

MR, CASE: And then we will take a vote on 
that which will be, in effect, to, whether or not the 
vote of last time should be reconsidered? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, and if it is to be recon- 
sidered, then the motion that we go back to the original 
motion, we will have discussion, debate and so forth. 
Just to repeat, so there will be n'" ?iisunderstanding; 
first, take with you at lunch time the two memoranda. 



Court Rtportert 



THE JACK S\t.O.MO.N RKPORTINC SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuiMing 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltxiitfion 9-6760 








87 




1 


MR. BROOKS: There are three altogether. 




2 


THE CHAIRMAN: Keep in mind that the one that 




S 


is the Special Report of the Coinmittee is not something 




4 


that the Coinmittee recommends. We are merely complying 




5 


with the request of the Coimuission that they attempt to 




6 


draft something. The Committee has not seen the draft 




7 


until now, the draft I wrote out yesterday. When we 




8 


return, I will allow Mrs. Bothe to present the drafts for 




9 


your consideration and have as much discussion of those 




10 


as you please, but no motions to adopt. I will then 




11 


recognize Mrs. Bothe to move to reconsider the vote by 




12 


which Section 3 was deleted at the last meeting of the 




13 


Coiuuission. That motion will be submitted without de- 




14 


bate. If it fails, then we move on to a consideration of 

/ 




15 


the alternate. If it passes, then the motion to delete 




16 


Section 3 is before the Commission, subject to further 




17 


discussion, debate and vote. 

of 




18 


MRS. BOTHE: Are there any copies /our Fifth 




19 


Report available, Mr. Brooks? 




20 


THE CHAIRMAN: I had one. I have my copy. 




21 


MRS. BOTHE: The Commission Members might have 






THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 




100 Eqjilablff Building 
Court Repcer, B.ItiL.or. 2. ManUnd Le.uitton 9-6760 





T 

■1 







88 






1 


some copies here because that deals with the subject 






2 


matter of the motion to reconsider. 






3 


MR. BROOKS: We asked everybody to bring 






4 


theirs with them. Those that don't will have to share 






5 


with those that do have them. 






6 


THE CHAIRMAN: Let's adjourn for lunch, and we 






7 


will come back as soon as we can accomplish that. 






8 


(Whereupon the meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. 






9 


for lunch, to reconvene at 2 p.m. of the same day. 






10 
11 


= 






• 




12 


- 






13 


• 






14 








15 








16 








17 








18 








19 








20 








21 










THE JACK S\r OMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

Courr Reporlen Ballimore 2. Maryland Ltxinflon 9-6760 








I 


T- 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COMMISSION 



AFTERNOON SESSION 
October 24, 1966 - 2 p.m. 
Brown Estate, Port Deposit, Maryland 



Appearances as heretofore noted 



Reported by: 
N. F. Swetland 



JT 



Cmurl Htporlert 



THE JACK SALOMON RCPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Blltimore 3, Maryland 



£«jrin|(on 9-6760 



90 



^ THE CHAIPJ-IAN: May we resume the session now? 

^ In accordance with the announcement before lunch, we will 

3 now take up as a special order of business the further 

^ Report of the Committee on Miscellaneous Provisions. 

5 Mrs. Bothe? 

6 MRS. BOTHE: As the Chairman stated before the 
'^ lunch recess, the Committee on Miscellaneous Provisions 

Q has unanimously determined to ask that this group recon- 

^ sider the motion rejected by an 11 to 10 vote at the last 

^^ meeting of the Commission. I believe that the attendance 

^^ at today's Commission meeting is larger than it was at tha 

time, and in view of the very close vote, it was the 

13 Committee's feeling that the matter should be reconsidered 

1^ by the Commission. 

15 ye have followed the Commission's directive 

1^ and proposed some possible language as has also Mr. Eney. 

1*^ Those of you who took the time during the lunch recess to 

IS look at these provisions I think can see why we have 

1^ brought our original one back for your consideration. 

The proposal which was contained in our Section 3, I will 



12 



20 



21 read it to you, because I know that some Members of the 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Eui-viabU BuilJing 

^ - .. . . . .< I J i«iiiif/oii 9-6:60 

Court Keportert Ballimore 2, Mar-jland 





91 




1 


Coiiiinission don't have it with them. It was as follows: 




2 


The University of Maryland shall be managed 




5 


by the Regents of the University of Maryland in accordance 




4 


with law and the Regents shall have exclusive general 




5 


supervision of the institution, and the control and 




6 


direction of all expenditures from the institution's 




7 


funds . 




8 


This Section would have given the constitution- 




9 


al security to the University of Maryland which it now 




10 


enjoys by statute. In view of the long debate, and I 




11 


don't even know if I would be proper on our motion to re- 




12 


consider to emphasize anything further than the very 




13 


close vote that was taken before, I would ask everyone 




14 


here whichever way they voted before and whichever way 




15 


they attempt to vote again, to at least let the matter 




16 


be reconsidered at this time, and I so move, Mr, Chairman. 




17 


THE CHAIRMAN: Before we have the motion, let's 




18 


have these provisions that anybody may want, questions 




19 


about the motion. 




20 


MRS. BOTHE: Mr. Chairman, it is your preroga- 




21 


tive to make the determination. I think the motion should 


I* 




THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Duilding 

Court Reporlen Baltimore 2. M.nUnd Ltxinglon 9.6760 






" ' .---.- ------ ^ 


- 



92 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



be decided without debate. 

THE CHAIRMAN: The motion will be decided 
without debate, but because of that, do we have any 
questions as to these provisions? 

Mr. Scanlan? 

MR. SCANLAN; Although I didn't find the 
Committee's reasons when they came in, in support of the 
proposed Section 3, I still would like to see, to hear 
their reasons why they reject the three suggestions con- 
tained in this Special Report. I might find their 
negative reasons more compelling than their affirmative 
reasons . 

MRS. BOTHE: Of course, Mr. Eney's suggestion 
did not come to us until today, and it is to be noted 
our directive at the last meeting was, as I understood it, 
merely to make proposals which granted some lesser degree 
of autonomy to the University , and there was nothing 
said at that time with regard to other institutions of 
higher learning as Mr. Eney includes in his proposal. 
So the Committee has no comment to make one way or the 
other in that respect. However, as regards the propositiorVs 



C*url JV.porreri 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Eqinuble BuiMing 
Baltiinore 2, Marrlaud 



Ltiintion 9-6760 



93 



I 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



which we presented you with, our feeling was that the, 
that a mere exhortation or direction to the Legislature 
to let the University alone was of no consequence, and 
really did not aspire to constitutional significance. 
We had understood that the Commission generally was op- 
posed to fancy language, fancy empty language in the 
Constitution, and while we had no objection to naming 
the University annex, claiming that we desire that it 
have as much freedom as possible, we did not feel that 
this was of constitutional significance. It took av/ay 
completely, it pulled the teeth of what we were trying 
to do, which was to grant constitutional security to the 
degree of autonomy that the University has enjoyed under 
statute. There was no other or better way to draft that 
language than as we did it. I would point out that the 
third suggestion, the one appearing on Page 2 of our 
proposals is one which has been copied from the Hawaiian 
and Alaskan Constitutions which are not among those 
filed as granting autonomy to their State University. 
We don't really know what it means, and I don't believe 
we were able to discover exactly how far that language 
w a s int e nd e d to sqHfacK^ftaiog9;9c?]<^.J^yi?^^P" mokero i n thos e — 



CMirl Rtp»rUi$ 



100 Equitable Building 
Biltimore 2, MaryUnd 



Ltxinfton 9-i'iO 



94 



1 States. We stuck it in for that reason. It could per- 

2 haps be read to be equivalent to our proposed Section 3, 

3 but it has never been so construed. 

^ The other two merely exhort the Legislature to 

5 do what they have done in the case of the University, 

6 but do not mandate it. Therefore, we see no purpose 

V served by including them, and of course, it is exactly 

8 the opposite to our intended purpose in the language of 

9 • the suggested Section 3 which was, of course, debated 
10 at some length at the last meeting. I think everyone on 
1^ the Commission understands the difference between con- 
^^ stitutional degree of autonomy. 

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Any 

14^ further discussion of the Special Report? If not, I 

15 will recognize Mrs. Bothe to move a reconsideration of 

16 the vote by which Section 3 was deleted. 

17 MRS. BOTHE: I so move on behalf of the Mis- 

18 cellanous Provisions Committee. 

19 THE CHAIRMAN: The motion does not require a 

20 second and will be submitted without debate. Ready for 

21 the question? All those in favor of the motion to re- 



THE JACK SAI.OMOiN KF.PORTINC SERVICE 

100 l:qiiil«ble Buildlr.f; 

Court Reporlert B.llimore 2, Maryland Ltxinflon 9-6:60 



95 



^ consider, signify by saying Aye. Contrary, No. The 

^ Chair is in doubt. All those in favor, signify by 

3 raising hands. Contrary. The motion is carried 17 to 4. 

* The question now arises again on the motion of Mr. Scan- 

5 Ian to delete Section 3. Section 3 is the Section on 

^ Page 3 of the Fifth Report of the Committee. I am not 

' sure everyone has it, so I will read it: 
° The University of Maryland, in accordance 

^ with law, and the Regents shall have exclusive general 

"^^ supervision of the institution, and the control and 

"*■ direction of all expenditures from the institution's 

^^ funds. 

"'•^ Mr. Scanlan, you have the privilege of the 

^^ floor. It is your motion. 

15 j^R^ SCANLAN: I hate to repeat the arguments I 

1^ stated in support of the motion at the last meeting. I 

1*^ think most of them are remembered by those who participated 



18 



20 



in debate. Briefly, I am opposed to raising the Univer- 



1^ sity of Maryland to, in effect, an autonomous department 



of the Government of this State. Napoleon once said the 



republican structure is the first object of government. 



But I am 3U1 - C he v^g^l^lcjl sMsLN^fc;>yRT.^^S:RvVc$put;lican structure 

100 Equitable Buililing 
Court Reporur, Baltimore 2. M.r>lin<l UMmgieH 9.6T60 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



96 



should be made an arm of government in the sense that 
those who are called upon to manage a great public uni- 
versity would have a status imperious to legislative 
supervision. I regard this provision as evidencing a 
distrust of the representatives of the people. I think 
it unnecessary. I think it is insulting. I think it is 
monopolistic. I think any need for its conclusion has not 
been demonstrated. The University has flourished, in the 
\ords of Mrs. Bothe. It is a great university and will 
remain a great university, and the granf of constitutional 
autonomy will neither make nor mar the great and develop- 
ing institution. These arguments you have heard from 
me before. I have seen, read, or heard nothing in the 
interval to change my mind. There has been no real 
demonstration for such a provision. It has no place in 
the Constitution, and if it is to be put in this motion, 
if my motion is defeated on the second go-around, I cer- 
tainly should include all the other public institutions 
of this State of higher learning if this provision continues, 
and I sincerely hope it doesn't. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? Let me 



Court Reporler$ 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, ManUnd 



Lexington 9-6760 





97 




1 


say to all of you, I don't think it is necessary to re- 




2 


mind you that we are following in this debate the tim limi 


- 


3 


tations, three minutes for every speaker. Any further 




4 


discussion? Any further debate? 




5 


GOVERNOR LANE: The difficulty that I have 




6 


and have expressed of the consideration when it first 




7 


came up was that I object to either the use of the word, 




8 


autonomy, or the implication of it, if the language is 




9 


intended to reach that far. I took the true Webster 




10 


definition of autonomy. He says it is a quality or 




11 


state of being autonomous. So I had to look up, that 




12 


reminds me of shaking hands to yourself coming back. 




13 


I looked up autonomous, and he says. Of and pertaining 




14 


to an autonomy. That is shaking hands twice. It is 

/ 




15 


independent of government without outside control. That 




16 


was my purpose in voting before, and I still maintain 




17 


the same position. Could I ask a question? 




18 


THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. 




19 


GOVERNOR LANE: Will the solution of this 




20 


very difficult problem in which there are various and 




21 


definite feelings, would it be possible to consider all 






THE JACK SAIOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

Court Rtporlif, Blllimorc 2. M.^ liiij Uxinflon 9-6760 





98 



1 of these suggestions that would eliminate the implication 

2 of complete autonomy? 

3 THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that we can con- 

4 sider all of them, but if this motion is defeated, then 

5 any motions to amend Section 3 will, of course, be pre- 

6 sented by anybody who desires to do so. If the motion 

7 is passed, then I suppose one could offer any one or 

8 more of these as substitutes. It would not be amend- 

9 ments because Section 3 would not be there, but I would 

10 assume one way or the other, the substance of some of 

11 these proposals at least could be put before the Commis- 

12 s ion . 

13 Mrs. Bo the? 

14 MRS. BOTHE: I wasn't going to make any com- 

15 ment , and this won't be long, but since Mr. Scanlan 

16 has spoken and our Honorable Chairman also, I thought 

17 there were perhaps a few things that should be said. The 

18 first, of course, which was debated at the last meeting 

19 were the implications of Section 3, and the word, autonomy 

20 is not used literally in that Section; one, because its 

21 meaning is ambiguous and two, because there was no 



THE JACK SALOMON RKPORTINC SERVICE 

100 EquiUhlr BiiiMing 

Cturl R,poru,. B.ltinore 2, MaryltnJ t«xillf«<.n 9.6760 



99 



1 intention that the University would be free from any 

2 control by the Legislature or the General Assembly. On 

3 the contrary, the power of the purse strings which is 

4 the untijnate power would be made, and at our last Com- 

5 mission meeting there was a lot of discussion how this 

6 would occur. I am sure everyone here is satisfied that 

7 the ultimate control of the University in terms of 

8 where the funds were to come from and how much they were 

9 to be insofar as the taxpayers would be supporting the 

10 University, would be and would remain forever inviolate 

11 in the hands of the General Assembly. So there is no 

12 absolute or even relative autonomy determined here, 

13 but merely that tlte experts, the people who know best and 

14 who are best able to handle our State University inde- 

15 pendently should have the right to do so in the Consti- 

16 tut ion without interference, not by the Legislature, 

17 really, but by the Executive Department, the Budget 

18 Bureau mainly, that this should not be taken away by the 

19 Legislature. That is what the essence of the suggestion 

20 is, and that is all it is. 

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? Before 



Court Reporttrt 



THE JACK SALOMON REPOP.TI.NC SERVICL 
Balti-no'c 2. Manl-""*! 



LtMington V-6T60 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 

8 

9 

10 

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



100 



Mr. Scanlan closes debate, I would like to state very 

briefly ray own reasons for opposing the motion for 

constitutional autonomy for the University of Maryland 

without repeating the reasons given at the last meeting. 

I have tried, as I indicated, to draft what I thought 

a 
could be acceptable to those sharing my views as /division, 

providing in the Constitution for some recognition in 
the Constitution for the University of Maryland, and what 
I have done is highlight the distinction of what I 
thought should be in the Constitution and that of the 
opponents of the Section 3. It seems to me that the 
University ought to have as broad autonomy as possible 
in all academic matters. It should have general super- 
vision of the institution. I don't think in this respect 
it differs one bit from that of any other institution 
of higher education. I think the same principle is 
applicable. At the same time, I feel that the Legislature 
ought to have the ultimate control in determining how 
far the governing boards of the University and the other 
institutions may go in controlling expenditures, in 
setting tuition fees and in determining all the other 



Court Reporlefi 



TH£ JACK SALOMON SErORTiNC SEKVJCE 
Bjirimore 3, Mjr.'Unj 



Ltiin^ie^ ')•«■(' J 



'*' ! 



101 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



matters which must be determined in the operation of the 
University. I think that the Legislature should, it 
could and should delegate large measure of control over 
these matters to the governing boards, and for that 
reason in the draft which I have prepared, I provided a 
constitutional encouragement for this by saying that 
the Legislature should do so. 

However, it is my belief that the, that 
neither the University of Maryland or any other public 
agency should have complete freedom from the General 
Assembly, and I am therefore opposed to this provision. 

Any further discussion? Mr. Scanlan, do you 
\cnt to close? 

MR. SCANLAN: Merely say that when Mrs. Bo the 
said the experts know best that it should be left alone, 
she therein put her finger on the real basis of my 
opposition to this proposal for constitutional autonomy. 
They should not be immunized from the representatives of 
the people. The only recent instance in my memory of 
what has been an attempt to trample on academic freedom 
at the University was the recent fuss when one of the 



C#ijrf Reporter* 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 E()uilablc BuiMin^ 
Baltimore 2. Mar>!snJ 



Leiinflon 9-6TM 



102 



^ Civil Rights speakers spoke at the campus, and a resolu- 

^ tion was introduced and not passed. Generally, the 

3 additional Members of the Legislature will come from 

^ the suburban areas of the. State, which traditionally have 

5 been very solicitous and very considerate and understand- 

^ ing of the needs of the University of Maryland and the 

"^ other institutions of higher learning in this State. I 

® think there is even less reason to fear undue legislative 

^ interference with the operations of the University of 

^^ Maryland than there may have been in the past, and in the 

^"*- past, as Mrs. Bothe has put it, the University has 

^^ flourished. 

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? 

1^ The question arises on the motion to delete Section 3 

15 from the recommendations of the Committee on Miscellaneous 

16 Provisions. A vote Aye is in favor of deleting the 
1'^ provision. A vote No is a vote in favor of retaining 
18 the provision. All those in favor, please signify by 
1^ a show of hands. Contrary? The motion fails, 11 to 13. 
20 Dr. Bard? 

DR. BARD: Mr. Chairman, is it in order to 



21 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Eqiiilibl* Building 

Court Reporicri Baltimore 2. Maryland l«Jiw«/o« 9-6:«0 



103 



submit an amendment or a substitution, whichever word is 

2 

in order, an additional amendment? 

3 THE CHAIRMAN: It is. 

4 



DR. BARD: I move that in addition to that 
portion of the Section which has just be voted upon to be 
retained, we add the following, and the State colleges 
and other public institutions of higher education shall 
formulate policies for their respective institutions 
and shall by law be granted such additional powers of 
supervision, direction and control of their respective 
institutions and the expenditure of the funds thereof as 
may be feasible and consistent with their status as 
public agencies. 

MRS. BOTHE: I second that, Mr. Chairman. 

^^ THE CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? 

^^ Dr. Bard? 

^''^ DR. BARD: It is highly important for us to 

recognize that every last point in connection with the 
significance of the University of Maryland having the 
power in regard to financial expenditures, the power in 
regard to academic degree, the power in regard to flexi- 



5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 



18 
19 
20 
21 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 EquilabU Builclirg 

Court Reporltri Baltimore 2. Mnr>'jn<l Ltxinflon 9-6760 



/•- ! 



104 



1 bility holds true for other institutions. As one who 

2 has been associated recently with one o f the State col- 

3 leges, the Bowie State College, I can tell you with firm- 

4 ness that some of the serious problems faced at this 

5 particular institution, and I know this from direct 

6 experience, have as their foundation stones the fact that 

7 the State College at Bowie, and this would hold true 

8 for other State colleges, does not have the flexibility 

9 to move beyond the salary schedule that has been set 

10 by, let us say, the Board of Public Works. By way of 

11 example, there are not more than one secretary at the 

12 entire State College of Bowie who can take shorthand, 

13 and the reason this is so is because we cannot recategorlze 

14 our secretaries so that there is a possibility of bring- 

15 ing them there under that situation. I could go on 

16 in connection with other positions. I am merely stating 

17 here that every last illustration which was stated last 

18 time hold true in this category. Now, because the point 

19 which Dr. York makes in regard to feasibility and incon- 

20 sistent with their status has been given credence by some, 

21 I have added the words, thereof as may be feasible and 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

Court Rtporleri Baltimore 2. NfjryUnJ Lexinfloo 9-6:(>0 



y^ 



1 

2 

5 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



105 



consistent with their status. 

I therefore feel very strongly that the positio 
which we have just taken makes it even more imperative 
than ever that we free the State colleges and other 
public institutions of higher education to the same degree 

THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Jenkins? 

DR. JENKINS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to empha- 
size and support the statement just made by Dr. Bard that 
all of the reasons for providing this freedom for the 
University of Maryland apply also to the other institu- 
tions of higher education, I may say as sort of a ex 
post facto statement that my vote for the original 
statement was not with regard to the University of Mary- 
land based on the assumption that the General Assembly 
group controls the purse strings and will ultimately have 
control of higher education in the State. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? 

Mrs. Bothe? 

MRS. BOTHE: Referring to the Report of 
Miscellaneous Provisions Committee on education, I would 
like to point out that the objections expressed in that 



a 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK SALOMON RErORTINC SERVICE 
100 Equitable BullJing 
Baltimore 2, Kfar>-Ijnd 



Ltxilifton 9-6769 



\-T 





106 




1 


Report to recognition of other institutions other than the 




2 


University of Maryland would not apply to the proposal 




3 


before the Commission now. Our reasons as expressed 




4 


there involve the state of development of the other 




5 


higher educational institutions that could not very well 




6 


be stratified in the Constitution in this present form. 




7 


However, the exhortatory language which Dr. Bard proposes 




8 


or rather the directive to the Legislature is one which 




9 


I, and I believe also the Committee, feel would leave 




10 


the latitude for development of the other institutions 




11 


of higher learning which we think is desirable, we feel 




12 


that in the long term they should be granted as much, 




13 


I hate to use the word, autonomy, but they should be 




14 


granted as much independence as his consistent with their 




15 


ability to operate independently. 




16 


MR. BOND: I wonder if we could have the 




17 


language as proposed by Dr. Bard read again? 




18 


THE CHAIRMAN: The language is to add to Sec- 




19 


tion 3 the following: In the State colleges and other 




20 


public institutions of higher education shall formulate 




21 


policies for their respective institutions and shall, 






by-^raw-r-be— grentedjjj^}^j^%^i3^iR)^p[i;^giJ5-R^aweiS ui Supei-vioxun, 

100 Equitable Bullying 
- -» » , . ^ .( I J Ltxifigton 9-6760 
Court Rfportert Baltimore 2, Mar>U^<l 







107 




1 


direction and control of their respective institutions 




2 


and the expenditures of the funds as may be feasible and 




3 


consistent with their status as public agencies. 




4 


Any further debate? 




5 


Mr. Martineau? 




6 


MR. MARTINEAU: I would like to ask a question. 




7 


Dr. Bard, where does that fit into the present Section 3 




8 


of the existing document? 




9 


THE CHAIRMAN: It is an addition to it. 




10 


DR. BARD: It is an addition to it, at the end. 




11 


No, it is an addition in Section 3 and in answer to that 




12 


question, I would like to make it clear if I may that 




13 


this is procedure that is used in most of the State 




14 


Constitutions that take a position in respect to higher 




15 


educational institutions. They mention the State Univer- 




16 


sity and then go on to mention other segments of higher 




17 


education. 




18 


MR. MARTINEAU: Where are you putting that? 




19 


THE CHAIRMAN: At the end of the Section. 




20 


DR. BARD: At the end of the Section. 




21 


MR. MARTINEAU: Then you are actually drawing 


1 




THE JACK SALOMON REPORTIiNC SERVICE 

100 EquitabU Buil.'.irg 

Court Reporler, Baltimore 2. MHnl-'na Ltxintlon 9-6:i0 

1 ■' * 





■■■1 .1 



108 



1 a distinction between the University and the State 

2 colleges, and the other institutions? 

3 DR. BARD: We are drawing a distinction at 

4 this time, this is correct, but I think it is a fine 

5 distinction in that -- 

6 MR. MARTXNEAU: Excellent or narrow? 

7 DR. BARD: Pardon? 

8 MR. MARTXNEAU: Excellent or narrow? 

9 DR. BARD: Narrow distinction. 

10 MR. GENTRY: Speaking against the motion, I 

11 would like to say that while I voted in favor of it, 

12 of keeping the original Section relating to the Univer- 

13 sity of Maryland, I don't think it can be said to be 

14 belittling of any of our other institutions to say at 

15 the moment they do not rank in the same status as the 

16 University of Maryland. The University of Maryland has 

17 attained this level through a progression through a 

18 period of testing under the Sections called the Autonomy 

19 Act in Article 77. They have had the statutory period 

20 of testing for some years now, and it was certainly felt 

21 by me that while they merited this consideration in the 



Court Reporlert 



THE JACK SA'OMO.N REPORTING SERVICE 
ICO F.q-itable Building 
Diltimorc 2, MjoUnJ 



Lexington 9-6."60 





109 




1 


Constitution, the same cannot be said of the other 




2 


institutions which have, and particularly the Board of 




5 


State Colleges, has only an existence of a few years, 




4 


very few years, and has had no experience with management 




5 


of its own funds, per se. I would urge that you vote 




6 


against the motion. 




7 


THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sayre? 




8 


MR. SAYRE: I have two questions; the first 




9 


one is in interpreting higher education, does that include 




10 


colleges? 




11 


DR. BARD: I think we ought to add the word. 




12 


State public institutions. I think that is a good con- 




15 


cept. 




14 


MR. SAYRE: Then it would not include -- 




15 


DR. BARD: Would not include the junior col- 




16 


leges. 




17 


MR. SAYRE: So the junior colleges could move 




18 


into a State position if the Legislature made it. 




19 


DR. BARD: That is possible. The junior col- 




20 


leges are local institutions. The question is an impor- 




21 


tant one, far more important than it may seem. As 


1 




THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 EquitatU Building 

Court K^porleri B.ltimort 2. Maryland Ltiintlon 9-4760 






T 


- 



110 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



President of the Baltimore Junior College, I have a good 
deal more autonomy than I do as executive consultant 
at Bowie State College. It is possible for us within the 
fraiTie of reference of our local units to, if v.'e have a 
necessity for filling a position, if money is available, 
we can do this under the autonomy that is given to us 
under the City Charter, for example. But there is no 
such possibility under the present structure that is 
in existence as far as the State colleges are concerned. 

I personally find no need, and I think I would 
say the same for other junior college presidents, to 
extend this to include local higher educational institu- 
tions . 

THE CHAIRMAN: Do I understand you want to 
change your motion to strike the v7ord , public, and make 
it State? 

DR. BARD: No, I would put, State, before 
public; and all other State. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Use both words? 

DR. BARD: I thought that might take care of 
his objection to, local public. 



Court ffpporftri 



THE JACK SAT.uMON REI'OKTING SERVICE 
ICO Eq.iiljhle BuiMin? 
Ljltiincre 2, Maryland 



Ltiinflon 9-6T60 



Ill 



1 THE CHAim-lAN: I understand. But you would 

2 want both v7ords? 

3 DR. BARD: Well, it might otherwise mean State 

4 private institutions, and you don't need that really. 

5 I guess, Mr. Chairman, X think you have convinced me 

6 that you really don't need both. State v;ill do. 

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Bothe? 

8 MRS. BOTHE: That is agreeable with me. 

9 MR. SAYRE : My other question simply relates 

10 to the meaning of this additional provision. As I 

11 I interpret the meaning, it is merely putting into the 

12 Constitution a guideline that is non-enforcing, actually, 

13 isn't it? I mean, this is v/hat the Legislature already 

14 can and would so, isn't that right, to the statute, and 

15 I just don't see where -- 

16 DR. BARD: I would like to get back to the 

17 point the Chairman made. Placing this in the Constitu- 

18 tion sets forth a direction. As you will recognize, 

19 this comes from Mr. Eney's structure. It sets forth a 

20 direction and not just a perfunctory guideline. It 

21 makes it clear that this is where we stand in regard to 



Court Rtporttrt 



THE JACK SKl.O\lOS REJ-OHTINC SLR VICE 
IW Iquitaljle Euilding 
fiallimorr 2, MaryUnil 



Ltxinfion 9-67o0 



112 



1 higher education and makes it lots easier for those of 

2 us associated with State institutions to move within 

3 that frame of reference. I would see it, for example, 
4: as providing those of us who operate at Bowie and like 

5 Dr. Jenkins at Morgan, to h£ve the kind of flexibility 

6 which will permit the State colleges to move ahead more 

7 rapidly. One of the very reasons I am at Bowie State 

8 College is as so many of you know, is because of the 

9 restrictions that have been so very severe that this 

10 college has not been able to move ahead and has some serio 

11 difficulties. 

12 MR. SAYRE: You think this would open it up? 

13 DR. BARD: I think this would open it wide open 

14 and I have strong feelings about this from experience. 

15 These are not mere perfunctory words. 

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sykes? 

17 MR. SYKES: Mr. Chairman, no one knows more 

18 about the State education system than I do. Enlighten 

19 me as to whether or not the addition of this language 

20 that Dr. Bard recommends would provide for two semi- 

21 autonomous administrative bodies which might be like two 



JS 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Tquirablr BaiMing 



Lexintton 9-i:60 
Court fieporleri Baltimore 2. ManUr.d 



1 

2 
3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



113 



heads on a Siamese twin or Siamese twins that would 
pull the body in different directions, with no place in 
the State to coordinate the policies insofar as they 
conflict. 

MR, CASE: Can I answer that? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Case? 

MR. CASE: I would like to make a statement 
in favor of this motion and in so doing, I will ansv7er 
Mr. Sykes' question. 

Since the advent of the Cur let t Commission's 
Report three years ago, higher education in this State 
has for the first time taken on a unified direction. 
Under that Report as ultimately adopted and then as sup- 
plemented by legislative amendment, there is a council, 
an advisory council on higher education V7hich theoreticall[y 
sits at the apex of the triangle dealing V7ith these 
subjects in our State. The University of Maryland is 
one of the three parts of higher education. The State 
colleges are a second part, and the junior colleges are 
the third part. 

Now, it is perfectly true that the advisory 



Court Reporlefs 



THr. JACK SM-OMON PF-FCRTINT. SERVICK 
100 f.qiiiiullr Bui!<!in; 
Bk^Itiniure 2, Maryland 



LtMin[lo.i 9-6:60 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

19 

20 

21 



114 



council has only advisory powers. But we at the Univer- 
sity respect this advisory council, and I might say that 
when major undertakings are afoot such as the institution 
of a new college which was done when the College of 
Architecture was installed in the curriculum last year 
that before this was done, the whole matter was submitted 
to the advisory council for their judgment and determina- 
tion. So I don't think it accentuates a two-headed 
monster in any sense of the v7ord. Now, as to my feeling 
perhaps as a Member of this Commission, and maybe more 
perhaps as a Member of the University's Board, there is 
just no question about the fact that if we are to have 
a fine system of higher education in this State, the 
University cannot do it all. 

Those people who thought the University was 
then end-all, be-all of higher education in the State 
have come to realize that this cannot and should not 
be the case, because the job is just too big. There are 
too many people to be taken into one institution, and in 
my own judgment, the University today is at its optimum 
size. I would hate to see it get much bigger with upwards 



Court Reporttrt 



THE JACK SALOMON KF.POnTINC SERVICE 
100 Equiublt Building 
Baltimore 2, ManU""! 



Lexinfisn 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



115 



of 30,000 students at the College Park campus, University 
of Maryland Baltimore campus expected to go to 5,000 
within a relatively near future term, and with the pro= 
fessional schools in Baltimore adding several thousand 
more to that, you can see what the University is going 
to be. 

Now, it is therefore not only desirable, but 
almost acutely necessary that the State colleges be given 
every chance to grow and strengthen. This is good for 
the University of Maryland, and it is good for the 
State in the largest sphere. I feel, therefore, that this 
amendment which Dr. Bard has suggested deserves the 
worthy consideration of the Commission because I feel 
that it will, it does take a good long step do^^m the 
road of strengthening the State colleges which, as I 
see it in the future will probably be the colleges closer 
to the people than any other institution of higher learn- 
ing. Therefore, I hope that the Commission will sustain 
this motion. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller? 

MR. MILLER: Parliamentary query, Mr. Chairman. 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPOHTINC SERVICE 
lOO EquiisbU Building 
B.ltimore 2, Maryland 



LoxUifton 9-6T60 



116 



1 
2 
3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



If this motion is voted up or dovTii, are other smendments 
open to consideration? 

THE CHAIRiMAN: Yes, sir. 

MR. MILLER: What will be the program? 

THE CHAIRl-IAN: Be open to further amendment. 

Mr. Delia? 

MR. BELLA: Mr. Chairman, in the discussion 
of the colleges, whet position does this leave the com- 
munity colleges? Are they still on the outside? 

THE CHi\IR>-IAN: As Dr. Bard explained, they 
£re not State institutions. They are institutions of 
the local subdivision of Baltimore City, and so forth. 
They would not be covered by this proposal. 

Any further debate? Any further discussion? 

I would like to state my ovrn position on this 
amendment, because as is obvious, a greater part of it is 
the language taken from the amendment v;hich I had sug- 
gested for the consideration of the Commission before 
lunch. I am going to vote for the motion, but I do so 
V7ith a great deal of reluctance because I share the con- 
cern expressed by Mr. Martincau, and, on one part, and 



Court RtporlKfl 



THE JACK SALOMON Rf:PORTINC SERVICE 
100 E.iiiiuMe Biiilihng 
Caltiinore 2, MAn'Uiid 



Ltiinflon 9-6."60 



117 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



Mr. Sykes on the other. I think this does very substan- 
tially increase the possibility that the construction 
given the Commission of Section 3 as proposed by the 
Committee plus this Section will greatly increase the 
measure of autonomy to be afforded to the University 
of Maryland, and thereby, by the same token, decrease 
the measure of autonomy to the State colleges. I think 
that this inevitably in a sense is a dov/ngrading of the 
institution. 

I also share Mr. Sykes' concern that this 
creates a two-headed creature that may or may not be made 
to work by the advisory board. 

The Legislature, I would think, would have 
considerable difficulty if it should ever determine that 
it wanted to have one Board of Regents or Trustees exer- 
cising control over all State institutions of higher 
education. However, the alternate of not recognizing 
the institutions of higher education at all and leaving 
in the provision recognizing the University of Maryland 
seems to me to give even greater impetus to the notion 
that the State colleges are thereby downgraded and give 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equiteble Building 
Baltjrrore 2, Maryland 



Ltxington 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



118 



even greater impetus to the idea that they should not 
have even a measure of control over the institution. 
Therefore, although X am reluctant and concerned very 
much about the effect of the double provision, I vjill 
vote for the motion. 

Any further discussion? Dr. Bard, will you 
close the debate? 

DR. BAKD: I have but this statement to make, 
Mr. Chairman. First, I agree very strongly v;ith your 
last statement, namely, to leave out the State colleges 
from this Constitution, no matter hov? you may feel in 
regard to the first motion which we have just passed, it 
would do serious damage to the growth of the State collegep 
at this time particularly. Most State Constitutions 
that deal vrith higher education include both elements, 
the University and the State colleges. To leave them out 
would be very v;rong. 

Secondly, it is important for us to recognize 
that the tripartite system of higher education is begin- 
ning to be deeply recognized in the State of Maryland as 

in 
it has/so many States throughout the country, and this is 



Court Rrporlt-tM 



THE JACK SM.OMON RFPORTINC SERVICE 

100 Equilable BuiMing 
Baltimqi-r 2, MaryUnJ 



Lexington 9-67f>0 







119 






1 


not a whim of the moment. It is something that has come 






2 


into being as a result of careful study by educators. 






3 


research and recognition, and therefore, to take but one 






4 


segment of the tripartite and recognize it would be to 






5 


destroy the whole tripartite arrangement with which the 






6 


State colleges are part. 






7 


Thirdly, the State colleges will have over 






8 


40,000 enrollment in 1980. Extrapolations have been 






9 


done. This is a strong segment of higher education. We 






10 


must think in terms of a totally new position which 






11 


they occupy; one with which I am associated at Bowie 






12 


will have 8000 students by 1980. Dr. Jenkins' institu- 






13 


tion will have somev/here around 8000 about the same time. 






14 


I think that is about correct. So we are dealing with 






15 


numbers that approximate that of the University of 






16 


Maryland by 1980 and therefore, I would urge you to 






17 


support this motion, because it seems to me that it is 






18 


critical, particularly now that we recognize the Univer- 






19 


sity to the very encouragement of those who work with 






20 


these institutions and to their progress. 






21 


THE CHAIRMAN: Ready for the question? The 








THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

Court Reporier$ Baltimore 2. Maryland t«jrut|/o« 9.«r60 


f 



120 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



question arises on the motion to amend Section 3 by 
adding at the end thereof the follov7ing language: 

And the State colleges and other institutions 
of higher education shall formulate policies for their 
respect5.ve institutions and shall by law be granted ad- 
ditional powers of supervision, direction and control of 
their respective institutions, and the expenditure of 
the funds thereof that may be feasible V7ith their status 
as public agencies. 

All in favor, please signify by a show of 
hands. Contrary? The motion is carried, 20 to 4. 

Mr. Scanlan? 

MR. SCANLAN: I V70uld like to make a motion, 
Mr. Chairman, substituting for Section 3 of the Bard 
motion in the following vjhich I can identify basically 
as Mr. Eney's motion, with one change of language, read- 
ing from Mr. Eney's memo, I move that the following be 
substituted for Section 3 as amended: 

The governing boards provided by law for 
State institutions of higher learning shall formulate 
policies for the respective institutions and shall have 



Court Rvporten 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.POnTINC StRVICE 
100 Fquitobic Bui'.iiinis 
Dallimorf 2, Maryland 



Ltxintlon 9-6."(i0 



121 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



general supervision thereof in all academic matters. 
They shall by law be granted such additional powers of 
supervision, direction and control of their respective 
institutions and the expenditure of the funds thereof 
as may be feasible and consistent with their status as 
public agencies and as may be deemed appropriate by the 
General Assembly. 

THE CHAIEMAN: Is there a second? 

MR. HOFF: Second the motion. 

MRS. BOTHE: Mr. Chairman, point of order. As 
I understand it, Mr. Scanlan is asking for a reconsider- 
ation of the previous action taken. 

MR. SCANLAN: Mr. Chairman? 

MR. CASE: I quite agree with this. 

a 
THE CHAIRMAN: Just/second, please. I am 

not certain. 

MR. MILLER: If the Chair please, that is 

the very question I asked you before we voted on it. 

There was no appeal from the ruling, and I think it would 

be extremely awkward if we were now legislated out of 

Court . 



Court Heportait 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



•i^«xiiif/on 9-6*60 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



122 



THE CHAIRMAN: That is exactly why I expressed 
concern, because Mr. Miller had asked if the Section v;as 
open to further amendment, and I said it was. This 
motion goes to the complete substitution of a different 
provision for the motion, for the provisions that have 
been adopted. I very frankly am uncertain and ~- 

MR. MILLER: I might say, Mr. Chairman, I am 
uncertain, too, as to the parliamentary. But it seems 
to me when the Chair has given me a ruling that was 
v; ith this very thing in mind I asked if it would be open 
to change and was told Yes, and there was not a voice raisbd 
in opposition. It would seem to me that irrespective of 
what might be the irregular rule on this, that it v;ould 
at least be operating as a distinct reversal as far as 
what the Chair told me. 

THE CliAIRl'IAN: Mr. Case? 

MR. CASE: Mr. Chairman, I think the time has 
come as far as this University of Maryland thing is 
concerned, to stop playing games. Thirteen people on 
this Commission have voted for the limited degree of 
autonomy for the University as suggested in Number 3 of 



Court Reporlert 



THE JACK SAIOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
KiO Eqiiilable Biii!i!ine 
Baltimof.- 2. Maryland 



Leiinflon 9-6T60 



123 



1 the Committee's recommendation. Now, the effect of the 

2 Scanlan motion would be to completely reverse that, 

3 completely reverse it, and to put the University of 

4 Maryland right back where it was before we voted. Now, 

5 one of the people who voted for the autonomy of the Uni- 

6 versity had to leave his note here, but has -- 

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Has anybody left? 

8 MR. CASE: Mr. Smith has left, and I think 

9 this is a monstrous thing. We are all grownup people 

10 here, and the majority of the Commission has voted for 

11 it. 

12 MR. MILLER: As a matter of personal privilege, 

13 I am not playing games, and I asked the Chair for a rul- 

14 ing, and I got it. I don't think it ought to be changed 

15 just because the ruling satisfied me, but if it hadn't 

16 been for that, I would have offered a motion to substi- 

17 tute this proposal. 

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller, the Chair does not 

19 think you are plahing games or have any desire to think 

20 so, nor does the Coirmission think so. 

21 MR. SYKES: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that 



Couri Reporlert 



THE JACK SAT.OMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Mainland 



Lexington 9-6T60 



124 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



v;hat has happened was, we passed a motion v;ith respect 
to a Section that contained only language relating to 
the University of Maryland. That was amended to include 
language relating to the State colleges. Nov7, the Chair 
ruled that the matter V70uld be open to further amend- 
ment and the amendment, as I understand, Mr. Scanlan is 
now authorized to conform the Section or to act upon 
the Section with an overall view in light of the amend- 
ment v/hich has already been made, I don't see how, when 
you make an amendment which is germane to the Section, 
you can shut off further amendment which is also germane 
tD the Section and v;hich is needed, because a Section 
which had previously dealt with only one subject nov7 
deals V7ith tv70. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I am ready to make my ruling, 
and anybody can appeal the ruling who desires to do so. 
The question with respect to Section 3 after the recon- 
sideration arose, not on the motion to approve the 
Section, but on a motion to delete the Section. The Sec- 
tion, therefore, remains before the Commission for action 
merely as a recommendation of the Commission. It was 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 FQiiitablt Buil.iing 
Ealti-icri: 2, Maryland 



Ltxinftcn 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



125 



subject to any motion to amend or substitute other 
language and still remains subject to those motions. If 
the motion had originally arisen on a question of approv- 
ing the Section, the ruling may have been different, 
but it seems to me that the motion is therefore authorized 

MRS. BOTHE: I would like to appeal the rul- 
ing and point out the practice of this Commission has 
been not to entertain motions in favor of the Committee's 
recommendation, but to let them go as proposed unless 
a Member proposes deletion or change. It was under those 
circumstances that the posture of the motion was before 
this Coirmission; and for that reason, the vote was very 
obviously one to retain the Section. It was so under- 
stood. The Chairman, before the lunch recess, pointed 
out that the Commission should regard the suggestion of 
the Chairman and of the Committee in taking its vote on 
reconsideration. I am sure that every one of us who 
were here at the time and those who still remain, under- 
stood when they voted on that motion that they were 
voting in favor of retention of Section 3 as proposed 
by the Committee. 



Court Heportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuiMin; 
Baltimore 2, MirylanJ 



Ltxinilon 0-6760 



126 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



THE CHAIRMAN: You ready for the question? 
The question arises on the motion to appeal the ruling 
of the Chair. 



JUDGE ADKINS: Mr. Chairman, may I make a 



statement? 



THE CHAIR>1AN: After the question. 

JUDGE ADKINS: After you put the question. 

THE CHAIR:-IAN: The question arises on the 
motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair. A vote No 
reverses the Chair. A vote Aye susta5-ns the Chair and 
permits the amendment. A vote No does not sustain the 
Chair. You ready for the question? 

JUDGE ADKINS: I would like to make a brief 
statement if I may. I v/ould simply like to state that 
I shall not vote on this motion. I would like to say 
briefly I have tv70 reasons for doing so. First, I did 
not have any discussion this morning relative to your 
proposal, and secondly, since I came late and since I am 
advised that one man has left who was in favor of the 
motion, it seems to me it would be fairer to all concerned 
if I considered myself a pair with Mr. Smith. Since I 



Court Reporlc 



THE JACK SALOMON REFORTl.NC SERVICE 
100 F.quitabic Buililing 
Balliir.ore 2. MjrvljnJ 



Lexinflon 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



127 



shall consider myself voting against the motion, but I 
will consider myself as a pair with him and not vote on th 
motion. 

THE CHAIRMAN: You ready for the question? 
The vote Aye sustains the Chair and sustains the motion. 
A vote Nay rules the motion out of order. All those 
voting Aye, signify by a show of hands. Contrary? 
The Chair's ruling is sustained, 14 to 7; the motion 
therefore is in order. The motion, as I understand it, 
and you will have to correct me if I don't have it right, 
Mr. Scanlan, is as follows: 

The governing boards provided by law for State 
institutions of higher learning -- 

MR. SCANLAN: Higher education. 

THE CHAIRMAN: -- shall formulate policies 
for their respective institutions and shall have general 
supervision thereof in all academic matters. They shall 
by law be granted such additional powers of supervision, 
direction and control of their respective institutions 
and the expenditure of the funds thereof as may be feas- 
ible and consistent with their status as public agencies, 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
lOP Equitable BailJiiig 
Baltimore 2, MirylinJ 



Liinfion 9-6760 



128 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



and as may be deemed appropriate by the General Assembly. 

The motion is to substitute that language 
for Section 3 as amended. 

Mr. Scanlan? 

MR. SCANLAN: This motion eliminates v;hat the 
Chair referred to as the dichotomy of treatment between 
the University of Maryland and the other institutions 
of higher education that exist by virtue of Professor 
Bard's amendment to the Committee Report. This Section, 
as I now propose it, treats all State institutions of 
higher learning equally, at least from the point of view 
of the Constitution and the autonomy that the Constitu- 
tion will provide. It permits the General Assembly to 
drav; distinctions among them in accordance with their 
developm.ent as educational institutions to give some more 
autonomy than others. Quite obviously, the University 
of Maryland in relation to the other institutions, has 
developed to a point V7here it v^ill undoubtedly continue 
to enjoy a very, very high degree of autonomy, perhaps 
almost complete autonomy. Obviously, some of the other 
State institutions may not be quite ready for that status. 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK S\10M0N RF.PORTINC SERVICE 
100 F.quilaLit Buil.ling 
Baltimore 2, MaiylanJ 



Ltxinflon 9-t'tiO 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



129 



However, it is the judgment the representatives 
of the people will make, and a judgment that only the 
representatives of the people should make. It should 
not be a judgment frozen into the Constitution. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? 

Mr. Bond? 

MR, BOND: Just a point of order. I understand 
the Chair will allow Judge Adkins and Mr. Smith to be 
paired off against each other. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I have no such authority. 
Under the previous Sections of this assembly, I understood 
-^udge Adkins' decision would be that he would not vote, 
and therefore failure to count his vote and Mr. Smith's 
would, in effect, be a pair. 

Mrs. Bothe? 

MRS. BOTHE: If Mr. Case wants to go ahead 
of me, it is all right. 

MR, CASE: Whatever you want. 

MRS. BOTHE: I wanted to comment on what Mr. 
Scanlan just said. He has raised a new monster, which 
I don't think we ever had occasion to consider, and that 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Buil.lip.g 
Baltimore 2, Mirylaud 



L*Minficn 9-6760 



t 



130 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



is that all institutions of higher education should be 
equal under the Constitution. There is no principle 
on which, at least I think I am speaking for my Committee 
here, we did not proceed on the basis that this was a 
constitutional requirement. All through our considera- 
tion after having ascertained the facts, we had to 
recognize that the University of Maryland was a different 
dish of tea than the rest of the higher educational 
systems and was bound to remain that way despite the 
growth and development of the other institutions. While 
it is part of the tripartite system, each point is some- 
thing different and requires different treatment. The 
University is a multi-faceted institution. It carries 
on a wide breadth of activity which no matter how many 
students come within the purview of the other higher 
educational institutions, they will not be the same. 
The need for the security of constitutional autonomy 
for the University is now and always will be distinctive, 
and there is good cause to put the University on a dif- 
ferent basis than the other State institutions of higher 
learning and to assure that it cannot be taken away 



Court Reporiert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equilablr Buililing 
Btltimore 2, Manl^nJ 



Lexington 9-6T60 



131 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



except by constitutional amendment. 

Mr. Scanlan's basic premise is false, as we 
found from an investigation of the actual operations 
of the higher educational institutions. We feel the 
University is unique. If we didn't, we would not have 
proposed that it be made an exception to the other, not 
only the other higher educational institutions, but the 
other institutions in the State generally. The amend- 
ment as he puts it would considerably weaken, of course, 
not only as applied to the other higher educational 
institutions of the State, but the whole principle that 
we sought to make in the Constitution would be greatly 
watered down. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Case? 

MR, CASE: V7ell, Mr. Chairman, I think enough 
has been said about this probably, very frankly, and it 
tends to get somewhat emotional which it shouldn't be 
in a group of this kind. I agree with Mrs. Bothe. As 
I understood the vote on the Scanlan motion, number one, 
it was a vote in favor of the type of physical autonomy 
that is embraced in that particular provision for the 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SAIOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Loxuigton 9-6760 





132 




1 


University. I think the thirteen Members of this Com- 




2 


mission in voting that way, have voted for the University 




3 


type, the type autonomy for the University as embraced 




4 


in that particular provision. 




5 


Now, there have been motions and counter- 




6 


motions, paring and counter-paring, but it seems to me. 




7 


Mr. Chairman, that the sensible thing to do is to find 




8 


out, as I thought we had found out, how many people on 




9 


this Coiiauission favor autonomy for the University of 




10 


Maryland, if that word is used in the context we have 




11 


here. Let's have done with this motion, counter-motion. 




12 


what I call playing games. No couuaission I have ever 




13 


sat on in this State has ever decided a basic problem 




14 


by parliamentary maneuver, and that is why I said, let's 




15 


grow up a little bit, and try to find out basically what 




16 


the Commission wants. 




17 


If the majority of the Counuission is opposed 




18 


to autonomy for the University of Maryland, then let's 




19 


register that opposition and go on from there and do our 




20 


work. If the majority of the people here in this room 




21 


favor it, let's accept that and likewise go on with the 




■ 


THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable BuilJing 

Court R,:porl,r, Bihimore 2. MaryliinJ I*«il«»on 9.6760 





133 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



work; but I soy that I think this is v7rong, and I think 
the substitution of a motion like Mr. Scanlan has made 
when one of the Members of the Commission who v;as in 
favor of this has gone, and nov? Mr. Adkins here who was 
against it before, is just playing games, and I repeat, 
we ought to go ahead vjith what we have done and use any 
other time we have to debate other things. 

THE CHAIR2-1AN: Mr. Sykes? 

MR. SYKES: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the 
problem is as simple as that. I V70uld like to state my 
position on Mr. Scanlan 's amendment. I am going to vote 
for it, not merely because of the reasons he stated he 
had, but because I find that his suggestion is clear; it 
states very clearly vjhat the direction is that v.-e want 
public education in this State to go, will be, and it 
states clearly the respective roles of the governing 
bodies of the State institutions of higher learning and 
the Legislature. I point out that Section 3 in its 
original form as recommended by the Committee does not 
do any of those things. It is itself a two-headed mons- 
ter, and each head is in irreconcilable conflict with 



Court Rvportera 



THE JACK SM-OMON HFrOiaiNG SF.RVICR 
100 Equitable HiiiMin^ 
Baltimore 2, Mao'^nJ 



Ltxington 9-6T60 



134 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



the other. It provides in the first clause that the 
University of Maryland shall be managed by the Regents 
in accordance with law. In the next clause, it says, 
shall have exclusive management. The two clauses them- 
selves, as I say, are in complete conflict, and the 
relative role of Legislature and governing body is not 
clearly spelled out. We all agree that the educational 
institutions of this State should be given a degree of 
autonomy as much as possible as a matter of policy. We 
also agree that the autonomy should not be complete. 
Now, I think that any statement which carries out those 
two fundamental desires of everybody here should be a 
statement that is not a litigation breeder, a statement 
that is clear and sets out the philosophy, and simply on 
that ground as well as on the other ground, I think that 
Mr. Scanlan's draft is a far superior draft to the 
original language recommended by the Committee in Section 
3. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Bard? 

DR. BARD: First, let me say that as an educa- 
tor, I am perfectly delighted with the procedures that 



Court Reporlert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equiteble Building 
Baltimore 2, Mao'^nd 



Lexington 9-6T60 



I 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

21 



135 



we have used. I think there has been a great deal of 
sincerity in the discussions. There has been a good 
deal of incisiveness , and there has been some honest 
differences of opinion openly stated. I, myself, be- 
lieve that I will have to vote against this motion, 
though inherently it embodies a number of elements that 
I think are very, very good, and the reason I shall vote 
against it is because it includes, and as may be deemed 
appropriate by the General Assembly. 

I think that this lies at the heart of what the 
CoiiiHiittee proposed some time back, and you will remember 
that I have stood for autonomy all along for the Univer- 
sity of Maryland and for other institutions, and I think 
the inclusion of this particular clause weakens the 
very autonomy that we are seeking. 

MR. SYKES: May I ask a question? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. 

MR. SYI^S: Would the amendment be satisfac- 
tory to Dr. Bard if that clause, as may be deemed appro- 
priate by the General Assembly, were deleted? If so, I 
would so move. 



Court Reporttrt 



THE JACK 5M.0M0N RKPORTINC SERVICE 
100 Fquitablr BaililiniJ 
Baltimore 2, MaryUnd 



Ltxintlon 9-6T10 



I 





136 




1 


DR. BARD: Are you v/aiting for my answer? 




2 


THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. 




3 


DR. BARD: I would like to see it read to 




4 


include the actual University of Maryland, and I think 




5 


that has been taken out. I saw no reason why that was 




6 


taken out. Why don't you say, provided by law for the 




7 


University of Maryland, State colleges, which is what 




8 


the Chaitiiian has. If you put a period after agencies. 




9 


I will go along. 




10 


MR. SCANLAN: I accept both amendments. 




11 


MR. HOFF: I will second that. 




12 


THE CHAIRMAN: Then, as I understand it, the 




13 


motion is to substitute for Section 3, the second reading 




14 


as follows: 




15 


The governing boards provided by law for the 




16 


University of Maryland and the State colleges and all 




17 


other public institutions of higher education shall form- 




18 


ulate policies for their respective institutions and 




19 


shall have general supervision thereof in all academic 




20 


matters. They shall by law be granted such additional 




21 


powers of supervision, direction and control of their 






THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Eq'i:lablr Building 

CQurt R^porler, B.ltimor. 2, Maryland LtMinglon 9.6760 





1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



137 



respective institutions and expenditures of the funds 
thereof as may be feasible and consistent with their 
status as public agencies. 

Now, Mr. Bond, you had a point of order. 

MR. BOND: I will withdraw it. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sayre? 

MR. SAYRE: Wait, this is beautiful, the way 
the language has been worked out. My problem on the 
original language, number one, was that I didn't want to 
discriminate against the other schools compared with 
Maryland. I didn't see how we could favor Maryland with 
that kind of autonomy that didn't have, by law, in it. 
The other problem was, I felt if I gave them exclusive 
provision for the University of Maryland, per se, pre- 
vented another similar body, for instance, right now the 
University of Maryland is the University of California of 
Maryland. What if we had a U.C.L.A.? What about another 
board? What about all these various complications that 
come with growth, say within twenty years, and not just 
1980? The contradiction that I felt in there has now been 
removed, and if we are going to have a provision in the 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuOding 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Lexinfion 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



138 



Constitution, I believe this would be acceptable to all 
concerned and certainly will not in any way discourage 
our continued growth. 

MR. CASE: Mr. Chairman? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second. Dr. Jenkins? 

DR. JENKINS: In reply to Mr. Scanlan's 
statement, I do not consider the motions we have passed, 
Section 3 and the amendment, to be unduly discriminatory 
against the State colleges at this point, at least. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Scanlan, Mr. Brooks calls 
my attention to the fact in reading your motion as amended 
I said public institutions of higher education. He said 
he thought you agreed with Dr. Bard it should be State 
institutions . 

MR. SCANLAN: That is correct. 

MR. CASE: I should like to ask a question, 
Mr. Chairman, either of you or Mr. Scanlan. Under the, 
under Section 3 of the Committee's Report, the only 
autonomy really that the University would have received 
would have been the right to expend monies, budgeted to 
it, as it thought best in the operation of the institution 



Court Reporlert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Balrimore 2, Maol'nd 



Leiinflon 9-6760 



139 



1 and that would not be subject to legislative control 

2 once the appropriation had been made. Does your amend- 

3 ment or what we are talking about now guarantee the same 

4 right to the University? 

5 MR. SCANLAN: I will answer that, but first 

6 I disagree with the assumption in your question that the 

7 only autonomy granted by your Section 3 was control, and 

8 direction of its finances once they had been received 

9 from the Legislature. Exclusive general supervision of 

10 the institution meant far more to me. 

11 MR. CASE: That is academic. 

12 MR. SCANLAN: My second point is that certain- 

13 ly the Section 3 as proposed in the pending motion would 

14 permit the Legislature to continue the statutory autonomy. 

15 MR. CASE: You are not answering my question. 

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second. Let him finish. 

17 MR. SCANLAN: The Section 3 as embraced in the 

18 pending motion would permit the Legislature to continue 

19 or to augment the constitutional autonomy that the 

20 University now enjoys, including complete control over 

21 expenditure of its funds once appropriated. 



Court Reporterg 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, ^!ary'and 



Ltxinilon 9-6760 



140 



1 MR. CASE: Or to take it away. 

2 MR. SCANLAN: Certainly. 

3 MR. CASE: So, what you are doing in effect, 

4 you are seeking now reversal of the Commission's former 

5 decision? 

6 MR. SCANLAN: I thought we had that out by 

7 agreement of the Chair. 

8 MR. CASE: I want everybody to know what is 

9 happening. It should be made clear. 

10 ' DR. BARD: Say that again. 

11 MR. CASE: What you are doing, in effect, is 

12 reversing a decision which the Commission earlier made 

13 with its 13 to 11 vote. 

14 MR. SCANLAN: I am not sure what the decision 

15 was. You have interpreted one way. The Chair has ruled 

16 I am not in charge of points of order. I answered your 

17 substantive question. Yes, the General Assembly would 

18 have the power to increase autonomy, let it remain the 

19 same, or cut it back. 

20 MR. CASE: So that you are, in effect, this 

21 motion does reverse the action of the Commission earlier 



Court Reporter$ 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
BaltiR^ore 2, Mir)'l"'<' 



Ltxinglon 9-6760 



141 



1 taken? 

2 MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, again -- 

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. I see no point 

4 in engaging in this. Each man can speak his comments 

5 and make his point, and that is enough. 

6 Mrs. Freedlander? 

7 MRS. FREEDLANDER: I have a question. Do I 

8 understand that the last phrase, and as may be deemed 

9 appropriate by the General Assembly, has been removed? 

10 THE CHAIRMAN: It has. 

11 MRS. FREEDLANDER: Well, that means that we are 

12 giving, if this passes, constitutional autonomy to all 

13 institutions of higher learning, in State institutions; 

14 and I would like to bring to your attention the memo from 

15 Dr. Rourk, who suggested that the other institutions 

16 should first pass through the phase of statutory autonomy, 

17 So, in effect, by removing this phrase, we are giving 

18 constitutional autonomy to all State institutions of 

19 higher education. 

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bond? 

21 MR. BOND: I would like to state I am more 



Court Reporter! 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Lexinfton 9-6T60 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



142 



persuaded by Dr. Bard's and Dr. Jenkins' comments that 
there is no two-headed monster being created, and Section 
3 as amended does provide for the proper degree of 
autonomy to the University of Maryland and also encourages 
the other State institutions of higher learning. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? 

Mr. Hoff? 

MR. HOFF: X would point out to Mrs. Freed- 
lander that the language here will permit^ just to permit 
action by the Legislature, just to meet the objections 
raised in that memo, that the autonomous powers that 
will be given these institutions may be as feasible and 
as consistent with their status as public agencies as 
the Legislature may feel that they deserve; and if the 
Legislature feels that they are worthy of a degree of 
autonomy, they will have the right to give it but need 
not be required to give it. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clagett? 

MR. CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to state 
my position, and I want to do so very briefly. I was in 
favor of giving autonomy to the University of Maryland. 



Court Reporten 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
IOC EquilabU BuildiDg 
Baltimore 2, Marjl"'"' 



Ltxintlen 9-6760 



.- T 





143 


1 


I was opposed to extending it to any other State insti- 


2 


tutions. I am opposed to extending it any further. I 


3 


believe profoundly that by recognizing the University 


4 


of Maryland as an autonomous institution, it goes far 


5 


beyond the interest of education, and in the interest of 


6 


the welfare of the State as a whole, and for that reason. 


7 


I favor it and only it being given constitutional 


8 


autonomy. 


9 


THE CHAIK4AN: Any further discussion? You 


10 


ready for the question? 


11 


MR. SCANLAN: Mr. Chairman? 


12 


THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second. You ready for 


13 


the question? 


14 


Mr. Scanlan? 


15 


MR. SCANLAN: I want to say one word. It has 


16 


been some time since we debated the provisions of 


17 


original Section 3, and as Mr. Sykes reminded us, during 


18 


the course of his remarks and to date. Section 3 is at 


19 


cross purposes with its own. 


20 


Mr. Case impliedly assumes that this really 


21 


grants a great deal of constitutional autonomy, yet the 




THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

Court Reporler$ Baltimore 2, Maryland Lexinflon 9-6.-60 







1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



144 



phrase, in accordance with law, suggests that the General 
Assembly of Maryland has significant and perhaps the 
same powers they now have- over the University. Our pro- 
vision, as we have provided in the pending motion, at leas 
has the advantage of clarity, and as Mr. Sykes says, 
defining the relationship of the General Assembly and 
defining that relationship in accordance, in relation 
to the governing bodies of the various institutions. 

THE CHAIRT-IAN: All right. Debate is closed 
now . 

MRS. BOTHE: I feel to allow the debate to 
close on the Committee that composed the proposed 
Section 3 — 

MR. SCANLAN: Point of order. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second. Go ahead, 
Mrs. Bo the. 

MRS. BOTHE: The words, provided by law, as 
the Committee proposed them, and if there is anything 
wrong with our us e of them, the language should be cor- 
rected and not the sentiment, meant the law would have 
to comply with the second phrase of Section 3 which 



Court Reporteit 



THE JACK SAtOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Butltl.'n^; 
Baltimore 2, Maryl<tnil 



£«xui(fen 9-6760 



145 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



gave the Regents general supervision and control. It 
was not meant in any way to give the General Assembly 
the free hand to give and take away the right of the 
University of Maryland's Board of Regents to manage it 
independently as Mr. Scanlan's motion would do. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Now, under our rules, debate 
should be finished. Did you want to say anything, 
Judge Walsh? 

JUDGE WALSH: I want to ask Mr. Scanlan, under 
his proposal, it is now before the body for action, takes 
away or gives autonomy to the University of Maryland. 
We have voted on that once, and we voted to give it to 
them, and as I understand, what he is proposing to do 
is to take it away through the back door. 

MR. SCANLAN: Judge Walsh, my proposal was 
not intended to take away any autonomy from the Univer- 
sity of Maryland. It neither makes or mars the autonomy 
they enjoy by law. 

JUDGE WALSH: At the present time they have 

c 
autonomy under the statute. They haven't got any auton- 
omy under the Constitution. 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Eqtiilabic Buil.Ung 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltxington 9-6760 



146 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that we don*t 
need to repeat the entire debate. It is clear that 
under the motion made by Mr. Scanlan, the University of 
Maryland would not have the constitutional autonomy that 
was provided for by Section 3, and I think he has stated 
that that is his intention. Now, ready for the question? 

Let me make this statement before I take the 
vote. I don't think it need be said. I think we would 
all understand that the Section as redrafted is more 
in accordance with my views than either the original 
draft of Section 3 or the draft of Section 3 as amended. 
Nevertheless, because of the fact that Mr. Smith was here 
this morning and is not here now, that the vote was so 
close and notwithstanding the fact that Judge Adkins 
abstained from voting, I don't think that goes to the 
whole question, the Chair will abstain from voting on 
this question also. 

All those in favor, please signify by a show 
of hands. Contrary? The motion fails, 10 to 11. Any 
further amendments? Any further discussion of Section 3? 

MR. SAYRE: Mr. Chairman, if it turns out 



Court Rvporttrt 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



LtMinglon 9 -6760 



147 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



that a board is more capricious than the State Legisla- 
ture would be, what control, is it appropriate to have 
an amendment where there could be some appeal to the 
State Legislature? 



tut ion. 



MRS. BOTHE: You can always amend the Consti- 



THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure I follow what you 
are saying, but V7e can't consider anything unless you 
have Specific language. Is there any further discussion? 
If not, this will conclude the special order of business. 
This will end further consideration of this Section. Is 
there any further amendment to discuss with respect to 
this Section? If not, that concludes consideration of 
that Special order of business. We move on to the next 
special order of business, which is the consideration of 
whether the Legislature should be unicameral or bicameral. 

Let's take a five-minute recess. 

(At this time a short recess was taken.) 

THE CHAIRMAN: Can we come to order, please? 

The matter before you is the continuation of thij; 
Seventh Report of the Committee on Legislative Department. 



Court Reporten 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Biiililing 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Lexington 9-6T60 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



148 



We will resume with a continuation of the Seventh Report 
of the Committee on Legislative Department; special order 
of business this afternoon is the consideration of the 
Report of the Committee as to whether the Commission 
should recommend a unicameral or bicameral Legislature. 

DR. BARD: Roman Number Three, Page 6 of the 
Seventh Report, represents the item not yet treated by 
this Commission. I shall read from that Section. 

By majority of one vote the Committee recom- 
mends to the Commission the adoption of a bicameral 
Legislature. The majority recognizes that the case for 
unicameralism is almost as strong and believe that Mary- 
land should retain its bicameral legislation. Within 
that frame of reference we are submitting the text of 
the Article on the Legislative Department unicameral, 
which is the continuation of the Seventh Report so that we 
might submit to the Convention both proposals, but at 
this time, the Committee is recommending that in addition 
to submitting both proposals that we make clear that we 
mean in the direction of the bicameral Legislature: We 
hope there will be an opportunity to hear each Member of 



Court Reporlert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Mir^Uni 



Loxington 9-6760 



T 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



149 



our Coramittee. We have a small Committee membership, 
and we believe that because it is by majority of one, 
it might be significant for us to hear from each one 
briefly. However, is it authorized, Mr. Chairman, to 
move the adoption of the Committee's recommendation? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think it would be simpler 
though, if you move the recommendation of the Commission 
be in favor of whatever you want to recommend. 

DR. BARD: As Chairman of the Subcommittee, 
and I think the frame of reference is important, I 
recommend to the Commission the adoption of, what word 
do I want -- adoption of the recommendation. 

THE CHAIRMAN: What is your recommendation, 
for the bicameral? 

DR. BARD: For the bicameral. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that you move 
that the Commission recommend the bicameral Legislature, 

MR. DELIA: Second the motion. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Let me say this, 
I said before: The transcript is being prepared here 
as a record for the general use of the public, but 



as 



Courl Reportert 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTI.NC SERVICE 
100 EquiUble Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Lezinflon 9i760 



150 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



primarily for the use of the Constitutional Convention, 
as to our reasons for recommending or not recommending 
certain things. This is one of the most important matters 
on which we will make a recommendation. We are drafting 
both the provisions, that is, for bicameral as well as 
unicameral legislation, recognizing it is a matter of 
considerable doubt or a matter of which there is consider- 
able controversy, and we should have something more than 
a mere vote. 

MRS. FREEDLANDER: A point of information. 
In order to get unicameralism on the floor, would an 
amendment to the motion be in order that the Commission 
recommend a unicameral Legislature? 

THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think it is necessary. 
I think you can tell by the vote on this. It is a very 
narrow issue. 

Mr. Bond? 

MR. BOND: Wasn't there a considerable discus- 
sion of this point at Easton? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Not the discussion, but whether 
the Commission should recommend one or the other. There 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimarr 2, Mir)Uc,d 



Ltxinglon ?-67b0 



151 



1 
2 

3 
4 

6 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



has been a good deal of discussion in coiranittee. There 
have been views expressed by witnesses before committees, 
but I don't believe there has been any full statement of 
the views of individual Members of the Commission. 
Mr. Gentry? 

MR. GENTRY: Speaking against the motion, I 
point out, as apparently I believe all of us are aware, 
that the origination of the bicameral system was, or 
goes back to a day when one House was chosen on a geo- 
graphical basis, and the other on population. 

Now, because of the recent rulings of our 
Supreme Court, that basis or that method is no longer per- 
missible, and both Houses of any State Legislature must 
be chosen on the basis of population. That being the 
case, it would seem to me that you no longer have a jus- 
tification for two Houses. 

The Legislature can operate in much the same 
manner that people be represented in the very same 
manner in a unicameral Legislature as they would in a 
bicameral. The arguments advanced in a bicameral House, 
the passage of bills is slowed down, and it gives 



Court Reporten 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Buildiog 
Baltimore 2, Mar)'IaiiJ 



Ltxintlon 9-6760 



152 



1 opportunity for more consideration and deliberation of 

2 legislative matters. However, I don't see where that 

3 would be in any way diminished by reason of there being 

4 but one House. 

5 On the other hand, I feel that there is a 

6 possibility where there are two Houses to pass the buck, 

7 to have one House as we have seen many times in the past 

8 with a great to-do, one House will pass a bill, knowing 

9 all the time that it is going to be killed in the other 

10 House across the hall. I don't think that system would 

11 prevail in a unicameral, under a unicameral system, and I 

12 think the unicameral system lends itself to more respon- 

13 sible and more responsive method of legislating the 

14 problems before the State. 

15 For this reason, I would say that there be no 

16 justification for the two Houses, because geographical 

17 representation is no longer permissible, I would urge 

18 our State switch over to a unicameral system. 

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Jenkins? 

20 DR. JENKINS: I would like to explain ray vote. 

21 I am in favor of a unicameral Legislature. However, I 



Courl Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORThNG SERVICE 
100 Eqiiitablr BuiUiing 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltiirxfton 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



153 



am going to vote for this motion for bicameral, because 
I think this is most acceptable to the people of Maryland 
at this point. There is only one State with the unicamera 
Legislature, and if this be treason -- 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Delia? 

MR. DELLA: I am in support of the motion. I 
feel that the legislation is such that when you are tied 
up in one House where it has certain advantages to it, I 
think it has certain disadvantages, and it is true when 
one House may try to pass the buck; but in the last 
couple of years I don't think this is so. You have had 
a younger type of Legislature who is quite interested in 
what they are doing, and I think they have been very 
consistent in trying to get good legislation through, 
regardless of what the other House may think. So, I 
feel it gives you a better chance to check and double 
check some of the legislation going through. I am saying 
this out of experience as a lobbyist, and many times 
things will get by people who are interested in certain 
types of legislation, and I think it gives you a chance 
to pick it up when it goes into the other House. I think 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPOKTINC SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltiiitflon 9-t:>>0 







154 






1 


for the benefit of the State as a whole, at any time, 




' 


2 


I feel that the bicameral Legislature would be best for 






3 


the State. 






4 


THE CHAIRl-IAN: Mr. Mindel? 




1 


5 


MR. MINDEL: Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the 






6 


Legislative Committee and one who has been in favor of 

• 






7 


unicameral from the very beginning, I would like to make 




1 


8 


a few points to the Commission. 






9 


I would reecho what Mr. Gentry said insofar 






10 


as a need for bicameral existing prior to reapportion- 






11 


ment. We have reapportionment, and there is no need in my 






12 


opinion for a bicameral Legislature. In answer to Mr. 






13 


Delia, I would suggest that he poll many of the citizens 






14 


of this State and find out if they don't favor unicameral 






15 


Legislature. In any conversation with many of the 




• 


16 


people with whom I have come in contact, I think they are 






17 


ready for it. I think we are greatly mistaken when we 






18 


think the people are not ready for it, and I think up 






19 


until this time, this question has been postponed until 






20 


after the election for fear that maybe a lot of the people 






21 


would not vote for the constitutional amendment, and I 








THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

Court Reporltr, B.Itimorc 2. Man!in-1 Ltxinflon 90:60 


i 



155 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



think that was all wrong. I think the people want it, 
and I think if it is explained to them, they will accept 
it. I think up until now, all we have done so far as the 
Constitution is concerned in many respects, is to dress 
it up. I think when it goes before the public, a lot 
of the people will not understand, and they won't care 
too much about many of the refinements that we are trying 
to make insofar as the Constitution is concerned; but 
I think if we present this question to them, as I think 
it is the most significant reform we have come up with 
yet, it is basic, and I think if it is explained to them, 
it will generate interest; and I think in talking to 
Mel Sykes , I think we both thought this was a forward- 
looking thing, and I think you will get the people to 
understand it, and they are ready for it. There is no 
question in my mind that the unicameral Legislature will 
be far more economical than the bicameral. Many of the 
students of government offer many arguments in favor of 
unicameral Legislature. I think most of. the articles 
that have been written are in favor of it. Perhaps that 
is due to the fact that this is a change, whereas those 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 EquilabU Building 
Baltiinare 2, Mar/IanJ 



Ltxin$lon 96760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



156 



in favor of bicameral Legislature are v/illing to sit 

back and let these arguments come forth. I think that the 

there 
unicameral Legislature will fix responsibility and/vjill 

be much less buck passing, as someone said a few minutes 

ago. 

Insofar as checks and balances are concerned, 
to me that is a fallacious argument. What is there to 
check and balance when you have reapportionment? In the 
early days, of course, they wanted a rural section, per- 
haps wanted to check the urban section. Now we find 
that members coming from all over the State representing 
the people as a whole, one person, one vote, I think 
there is absolutely no basis for this argument on checks 
and balances. Too many people, perhaps, are led astray 
by the argument of checks and balances when it comes to 
the Congress of the United States. Well, that is a horse 
of another color, in my opinion. 

I don't think it is necessary at all when it 
comes to State government. We find that virtually all 
of the municipalities, all of them have unicameral 
Legislature, and I see no reason why we at this time can- 



Cmuri Heportttt 



THE JACK S».LO\(ON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Buildir.ar 
Biltiirare 2. Mirjlind 



Iczuffon 9-t:M 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



157 



not advocate and present to the Congress an argument in 
favor of unicameral Legislature. The time is ripe. 
I think the people are ready for it, and ve can do a 
real service in favoring the unicameral Legislature. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Freedlander? 

MRS. FREEDLANDER: I would like to also speak 
in favor of unicameralism. This Commission voted 
down the staggered term, so we cannot say it is a dif- 
ference in staggered term. We do not allow one body 
to introduce bills different from the other body. We 
are going to, we are hoping that under our Political 
Subdivisions proposals that there will be no local 
legislation so that those reasons that used to be justifi- 
cation for a bicameral Legislature are no longer valid. 

Furthermore, we have the privilege of listening 
to political scientists and others who appeared before 
the Subcommittee on Legislative Department, as well as 
the total Commission, and they felt the time was ripe 
now to think in terras of unicameralism because of the 
reapportionment. When the Legislature appeared before the 
Legislative Department, I understand that several of them, 



Couri Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Ruilding 
Baltimore 2, Mar)-land 



Ltiinflon 9-6'(>0 





158 




1 


including the legislative leaders, I will not mention 




2 


names, were in favor of unicameralism v/hen questioned 




3 


and also in polling people, as Mr. Mindel says, I found 




4 


that they liked this idea and finally, I would like to 




5 


state that we in the Coimnission could be trailblazers . 




6 


We could lead the people in a case of this type. 




7 


THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Bard? 




8 


DR. BARD: Mr. Chairman, I would like very 




9 


much to have the views of Dr. Michener and Dr. Wins low 




10 


who have made special studies in this area. Might I 




11 


have the privilege of asking them to comment? 




12 


THE CHAIRMAN: We will ask those as soon as 




13 


the other Members have stated their position. 




14 


Mr. Bond? 




15 


MR. BOND: First, I would like to just clarify 




16 


what Mrs. Freedlander said. I am positive from personal 




17 


experience that different Houses can introduce different 




18 


bills pertaining to the same subject, and that matter is 




19 


resolved. 




20 


MRS. FREEDLANDER: Appropriation bills, for 




21 


instance, in the House of Representatives. Either one can 






THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

Court Reporuri Ballimor. 2, Maryland Uxinglon 9.6:60 





1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



159 



introduce the appropriation bills in the State Legisla- 
ture. 

MR. BOND: Also I think it was overlooked in th|e 
discussion, it is proposed that the Senate be a smaller, 
more pliable, I use the word to mean more flexible, and 
your House would be a large body representing, having 
many more representatives and be somewhat in closer 
contact with the people, perhaps. I was persuaded at 
sometime during this discussion, when I believe Governor 
Lane, I am sure it was Governor Lane, but I will let him 
speak for himself, in his opinion he felt it was something 
to be gained from the checks and balances. All of us 
who have shepherded bills through the House and through 
the General Assembly know that there is certain gain and 
benefit from two looks, and often our best legislation 
is changed for the better at the second look and upon 
amendment. For that reason, I am going to vote for bi- 
cameralism. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clagett? 

MR. CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
state my position, and it has been one I have arrived at 



Court Reporter* 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Buildin; 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Lexington 9-6T60 



160 



1 after much soul-searching and represents to some extent 

2 a change of position since this Commission initially 

3 met back in June of 1965. I am going to vote for 

4r unicameralism, because I feel that by the redraft of ■ 

5 this Constitution where v/e have strengthened the local 

6 government and placing a great deal of responsibility 

7 at that level, the Legislature is going to have the res- 

8 ponsibility of clarifying and redefining the lines 

9 between the local subdivisions and the Legislature itself. 

10 Where you can inject into that process a 

11 degree of clarification of the responsibility of the 

12 General Assembly to the local subdivisions and to the 

13 electorate, I think a very real forward step will have 

14 been taken insofar as representative government is con- 

15 cerned. Along that line, by reason of the fact that I 

16 believe firmly that a unicameral Legislature will clarify, 

17 I am changing ray vote and voting for it. 

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sykes? 

19 MR. SYKES: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

20 address myself to one aspect of this problem. I think 

21 the ultimate political decision will be made by a 



Court Reporter! 



THE JACK SALOMON KEPORTING SERVICE 
100 tquitablc Bui'iJing 
Baltinort 2, Maryland 



Lexington 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



161 



Consitutional Convention. I think that the service 
we can perform here is voting our own conscience on what 
we regard as the merits of the question without regard 
to any attempt at prognosticating what is and what isn't 
acceptable to the majority of the people. I personally 
feel, for reasons which I won't repeat, that we can do 
the greatest service by stating that it is the recommend- 
ation of this body after considering the question on its 
merits, that we have a unicameral Legislature as a means 
of bringing into being a new form of government which 
looks forward rather than embalm the bicameral Legisla- 
ture which is a fossil of an era now departed merely on 
the theory that maybe we won't be able to explain properly 
to the people what we are trying to do. 

I agree with Mr. Mindel that actually if this 
Constitution as it finally comes out, is submitted to 
the people as a collection of dry, legalistic workings 
of existing language, it won't have as good a chance of 
passage as if there is a little of what I might be per- 
mitted to call schpialtz or sex appeal in it, and I think 
this unicameral provision is something if properly explain 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltlinilon 9-6760 



162 



1 can make people feel that the whole enterprise of 

2 government in Maryland is being given a forward look. 

3 THE CHAIRMAN: You want to spell schmaltz? 
4: MR. SYKES: It is spelled s-c-h-m-a-1-t-z. 
6 JUDGE ADKINS: I should like to make three 

6 brief points in supporting bicameralism. First of all, 

7 I think the point that Martin Jenkins made should be 

8 reiterated. Bicameralism is thoroughly ingrained in 

9 the whole framework of our Government at the Federal 

10 level and also at the State level. That means to me 

11 that the proponents of unicameralism have a very heavy 

12 burden to bear. So far, I have heard no reason advocated 

13 in favor of unicameralism except the possible saving of 

14 expense. 

15 Now, I am mindful of the necessity to save 

16 expense, but I have not noticed that argument to prevail 

17 in other areas in debates of this Commission, and I urge 

18 it not be decisive in this particular debate. I think 

19 that the burden has not been met, and to that extent, we 

20 should follow tradition. 

21 The second point I would like to make, well. 



Court Reportcn 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equiuble Buil<!ing 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



LtMington 9-6760 



r 
i, 



163 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



I would like to make one further comment, and that is to 
say that trailblazing is fine, if we know what is at 
the end of the trail. The political scientists will tell 
us when they get their turn what is at the end of the 
trail. I suggest to you what they say has not been borne 
out in the heat of battle except in a very limited number 
of cases o I suggest they should not be decisive in our 
deliberation. 

The second point I make is to discuss this 
question of reapportionment. I think my viev/s on that 
subject are not entirely unknovvTi since I have had occa- 
sion to comment on them before. The adoption of reappor- 
tionment does not obviate the necessity of a bicameral 
Legislature the way I see this problem. There are 
definite merits to the areas which are the least populated 
in having two Houses. If I may relate it to statistics 
in my own case, for example, my own County, we would have 
one senator who would be representing our interests out 
of 43. We would have two members of the Legislature 
out of 143. To this extent we would consider the right 
to have one out of 43 as a check against the two out of 



Court Reporter$ 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Xq-jitable Bui!'Jing 
Baltimore 2. MarjUnd 



Ltxintlon 9-6T60 



164 



1 143 a very precious privilege. V7e would urge, therefore, 

2 that although our senators are themselves related to 

3 population by virtue of being designated as primarily 

4 responsible for our area, we do get a protection against 

5 what we have chosen to call the plurality of the major- 

6 ity. I do not think the argument relative to reapportion- 

7 raent will stand too close analysis, 

8 The third point and last I would like to 

9 make is, one of the great problems in legislation is the 

10 necessity to alert the people to those matters which 

11 are being considered by the Legislature. All of you 

12 around the table have had experience of waking up and 

13 finding bills have been passed without your having had 

14 adequate notice or without interest which you know about 

15 having had adequate notice, and I think this is in large 

16 measure obviated, this danger is obviated by having two 

17 Houses. 

18 First of all, many times a bill will come to 

19 public attention only after a hearing. If .the hearing 

20 is held, it receives a certain amount of publicity. 

21 That publicity in itself generates education among the 



Court Rtporttrt 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuilJinj 
Baltimore 2. Mar>bnd 



Ltiinglon 9-6760 



165 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



electorate. Many times the education is received too 
late to be effective in the House of origin. It is not, 
however, too late to become effective in the second 
House, whichever it may be. I think there is a very 
strong vested interest in having as wide dissemination 
of pending legislation as possible. I do not think that 
can be achieved by the unicameral system. 

With those three reasons, I would urge we 
adopt the Conxnittee's recommendation. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Martineau? . : 

MR. MARTINEAU: I would like to speak in favor 
of the unicameral Legislature and looking at the same 
facts as Judge Adkins does, I come to the opposite con- 
c lus ion . 

First of all, I would like to address myself 
to Dr. Jenkins' suggestion that although he is in favor 
of unicameralism, he doesn't think the people are ready 
for it, and he would vote against it. I think that 
would be a serious mistake. My own personal observations 
have been that what little polling I have done, private 
polling, is that people are much more ready to take 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTIN'C SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Lexington 9-6760 



166 



1 
2 

3 

4 

6 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



unicameralism than we might suspect, and I think this is 
a time when we should vote our convictions. This is 
merely a recommendation, and we should vote what is 
appropriate. 

I might say in connection with that, I think 
that if we, if the Constitutional Convention adopts 
a bicameral Legislature, I think we will have that for 
the next one hundred years. It is not a question of 
giving the reapportionment bicameral Legislature a time 
to see if it works, and if it doesn't work, we can 
change to a unicameral. If we adopt it now, we will 
always have it. If we adopt the unicameral Legislature 
now, and it doesn't work out, it would not be very 
difficult to change back to a bicameral Legislature. 

Another point, it seems to me that those who 
argue that the small Counties should favor a bicameral 
Legislature because they will have greater protection 
there, I think are making a great mistake. Take, for 
example, my own County of Carroll, we are a smaller 
County included in a district of a number of other Coun- 
ties and do not have the population to elect that senator, 



Court Reporter* 



THE JACK SAT.OMO.N REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, MarylanJ 



Lmxingron 9-6760 



,^ F 



167 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



I think for all practical purposes in the smaller body of 
the General Assembly those Counties are going to be un- 
represented, and I think this is one, to me, one of the 

great dangers of having a Senate which will have to be 

by 
represented/multi-County districts; and I V70uld much 

prefer to have just one House in which the representation 
can be on as low a basis as possible; and just my last 
point, which is just completely opposite of what Judge 
Adkins has said, I think that with the fact of reappor- 
tionment, those people who want to have a bicameral 
Legislature, it seems to me, have the burden of proof 
here, and I really have tried very hard in all the 
debate that has been going on, involving bicameral and 
unicameral Legislatures, to find out some reason which 
would justify the keeping of a bicameral Legislature; 
and I certainly have not heard any arguments which have 
any, carry any weight as far as I am concerned with the 
keeping of a separate House of the General Assembly with 
all the problems and all the expense that goes along 
with it. 

So for that reason, I am going to vote in 



Court Reporiert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltxingion 9-6760 



168 



1 favor of the unicameral legislation. 

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr.Haile? 

3 MR. HAILE: An argument can also be based 

4 on experience as well as reason, and I would like to 

5 state my experience with a unicameral Legislature. 

6 The duty of this group here, this Commission, is that 

7 we come from different backgrounds and experiences. 

8 Mine has been for 600,000 people for the past ten years. 

9 Now, the most serious argument against unicameral 

10 Legislature is that unwise legislation might get through 

11 whereas if there are two Houses , it would be caught up. 

12 From experience, however, it seems that 

13 there are five things working with unicameral which mini- 

14 mizes the passage of unv7ise legislation; first, the 

15 executive veto; second, there is a referendum reserved to 

16 the people; thirdly is the press and publicity and the 

17 molding through that of public opinion which works 

18 directly on unicameral legislation, and fourth is the 

19 Judiciary, which strikes down any illegal legislation, 

20 and fifth is the power of the unicameral Legislature to 

21 amend many laws which have proven unwise. 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Builling 
Baltimore 2, Mar)!anJ 



Lexington 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



169 



Therefore, from experience, I would favor 
that we recommend to the Convention a unicameral Legis- 
lature. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller? 

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the 
Committee, I am one of the Legislative Conmittee that 
hasn*t changed his views. I still favor the bicameral 
system. It is partly, perhaps, because of personal ex- 
perience. I have never served in the Maryland Legisla- 
ture, but certainly anybody that served in the United 
States Congress could point out dozens of instances where 
the two-chamber system has saved the country a great 
deal of embarrassment. 

The objections to conference comnittees when 
the two Houses vote modifications of the same measure — 
the idea that those are normally smoke-filled rooms 
where deals are made is in at least my personal experience 
and I have sat on a good many of them, they have produced 
some of the best legislation, and it has to pass both 
bodies, comes out of such, a compromise. 

The pragmatic test, however, is that not only 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Zquilable Building 
Baltimore 2. ManUoJ 



Leiinflon 9-6T60 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



170 



on the Federal level but in the whole thumping majority 
of the State, the system we have had is a good system. 
It is the best ever devised and one of the fairest and 
can show a lot to be said about the unicameral system, 
it isn't proven as is the present system of two chanbers . 

One thing I think that people, if we had 
just one body with forty or fifty members representing 
the whole State, if there is a best quality, it wouldn't 
ruin anything to have it done that V7ay, but those men 
would have a tremendous burden with only forty or fifty 
legislators for the whole State, it would practically 
and particularly as we were talking of limited sessions, 
it would practically mean that everybody had to serve 
on several committees, and the result would be that the 
committee activity would be greatly hampered, in my opinion 

One other point that I think is very impor- 
tant, and it certainly has been true, both on the State 
and on the Federal level, is that the legislative body 
gets a great deal of benefit from just the man on the 
street, the fellow that comes in and says. What are you 
going to do about this, or. You ought to do that. Well, 



Court Reporterg 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 EqL:itabIe Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltiinfton 9-6760 



171 



1 if there is only one voice for a whole great area in the 

2 State, the opportunities of that one man to meet as 

3 many people as in two chambers, a chance to keep in touch 

4 with the public sentiment is greatly reduced by the very 

5 shortage of numbers. 

6 Last but not least, I think this: I disagree 

7 with some of the argimients that it would be, that now 

8 is the time to put to the test, v/e have got a great 

9 many important things in this new Constitution that we 

10 hope will be adopted, that we drafted. There are very 

11 fundamental changes, as I understand it, in our Judiciary. 

12 If our local self-government goes through -- and a dozen 

13 other points -- but I can't help believe that if we go 

14 and adopt something that comes as a shock to a great many, 

15 that we don't all talk to, depart from a system that has 

16 stood Maryland and the country in good stead, to try a 

17 new experiment, I think it is a danger that all of our 

18 work will suffer because they will say these people are 

19 just going to change everything, and let's vote it down. 

20 Now, I may be wrong about the public reaction, 

21 but I can't help but feel there is some danger of that. 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SAI.OMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuiMir.g 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Lexington 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



172 



Consequently, I am still in favor of a bicameral system. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further comment by Members 
of the Commission? 

Mr. Scanlan? 

MR. SCANLAN: As the Chairman noted, the vote 
in our Committee was 3 to 2 . He more accurately could 
have said it V7as 2 and 3/4ths to 2 and l/4th. Even as 
the hour of voting approaches, I still have reservations 
in my vote, although I lean toward the bicameral system. 
On that I would like to make a couple of points to put 
the case for bicameralism a little stronger. 

It is not quite accurate to say that the 
bicameral system arose out of the geographical situation 
where one House was ' looked upon as a rural check on the 
urban elements. In point of fact, when the bicameral 
Legislatures of this country were first created, they were 
based on population. Following the Civil War, with the 
Legislatures not reapportioned, the system did grow up 
in many States, in Maryland, one House had misrepresenta- 
tion which favored one area over the other. 

Woodrow Wilson pointed out that the bicameral 



Court Rvporien 



THE JACK SALOMON RKPORTLNG SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
fialliniore 2. Mdr%UnJ 



Ltxirtiton 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



173 



system that the States had, had no necessary relation 
to the Federal analogy. He said no principle is involved 
in this, but tempering legislation, taking a second look. 
This was the original basis for the original bicameral 
and on that point, the record should be clear. 

Secondly, I noticed a number of States have 
had this problem in recent years, particularly the States 
of Alaska, Hawaii, Michigan, KentAJcky '*a«d*Rhode Island, 
I don't believe any one of those States has elected to 
adopt in their new Constitutions the bicameral system. 
In point of fact, I think it far more important to have — 
whatever the form of the Legislature, the more important 
thing is that it be efficient. You could have a bicameral 
Legislature with modern powers of investigation, with 
staggered terms, with continued sessions, with strong 
committee systems, which would be far better and far more 
efficient than a unicameral Legislature that didn't have 
the things mentioned. 

A bicameral Legislature with all these modern 
reforms in opposition to a unicameral Legislature with 
all these modern reforms -- what would I say? In the end 



Court Reporlen 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Mao'a'x' 



Lexington 9-6760 



174 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



I would fall back on the historical argument, this is 
the way we have done it from time immemorial and unless 
there are really compelling reasons to do it another way, 
I for one, despite the fact I see the advantage in 
economics and perhaps from the point of view of efficien- 
cy, in the unicameral Legislature, I think it a difficult 
step. 

If I thought for a moment that the new Con- 
stitution would be endangered by our adoption or recom- 
mendation of a bicameral -- of a unicameral system, I 
would have no reservations about my vote. I can't be 
sure about that, so as I vote, I still have reservations. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? 

Mr. Sayre? 

MR. SAYRE: In retrospect, Mr . Scanlan used 
to say the bicameral Legislature of Maryland had never 
been given a chance to work property, and I would say. 
Well, if it were, the very same things that would make it 
work properly would also apply to unicameral Legislature, 
the matter of staffing and alteration and all the rest. 
I don't knov*/ how many read this material that we all 



Court Reporiert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Fquit^ble Building 
Baltimore 2, Marjland 



Lexington 9-6T60 



■ I 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



175 



received here, but it points out that although we have 
known the bicameral system throughout most of our history, 
the national Government under the Articles of Confedera- 
tion had unicameral Legislature and Benjamin Franklin, 
whom I think was a great man, also favored the unicameral 
Legislature even for our Federal Government. 

Now, if we are going to really speak of 
strengthening government, number one, so that the people's 
will can be better expressed, this means strengthening 
the departments of government. Now, I think that we 
have very significantly strengthened the Judiciary and 
the Executive Departments. We have yet to act upon what 
I regard as the fourth arm of our Government, that is 
local government, and right now is when we are going to 
settle whether or not we are going to strengthen the 
Legislative Department. 

Now, I would say that rather than lead off 
with a bicameral recommendation that it would be wise 
to lead off not only from the public relations viewpoint 
to get some discussion about our activity, but to lead 
off so there is discussion on the merits of bicameral 



Court Reporter* 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuilJinj 
Baltimore 2, ManU"'} 



Ltsintion 9iT60 



176 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



versus unicameral. If we don't really have that much 
reservation amongst those who do for the unicameral, 
it would make it so that you would havebetween now and 
the time of the Convention for people to be talking about 
this. 

Now, I am just sure from the appointments I 
have that the people don't care one way or the other. 
If we do reduce cost, they would be in favor of that. 
If we could increase the quality of our Legislature, they 
would be in favor of that. If we could elevate the 
stature of our Legislature, they would be in favor of 
that. I know of no other way than to elevate the stature 
of the Legislature than to have them actually represent 
more people, as for example, the Council of Los Angeles 
represents where you would rather be a councilman than 
a legislator. I would name our Legislature to the Senate. 
I would do the same thing as v^e have done in the District 
Court, make it stand out where they have greater respon- 
sibility and as a result of this greater responsibility, 
we are going to get people who will be more inclined 
to serve in the Legislature who before would much rather 



Court ReporterM 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2. ManlanJ 



Lexington 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



177 



go ahead and talk and try to be influential but go 
about their business because they can't afford to be in 
the Legislature, it doesn't have the attractiveness for 
their talents. i.Wq.»:, and this is getting back to the mat 
ter of population, we are going to become more and more 
an urban nation. Within another twenty years, 70 per 
cent of our population will reside in suburban and 
urban areas. This means there is going to be smaller 
and smaller vote, I think, representing the territories 
as such. 

Where do we get the greater strnegth for those 
people who don't have the vote of the Legislature? It 
is through a strong local, district or regional govern- 
ment who would be able to have its proper representation 
in the Legislature, because it has to be concerned with 
areas. If we take a whole perspective of where we are 
involved, we need to have a body that can take a stronger 
look at the legislation, be able to introduce half as 
much legislation as a bicameral Legislature will do and 
would be able to have certain procedures that actually 
will provide a closer look at the legislation that goes 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equilable Building; 
Baltimore 2, Moo'*'"! 



Lcxinffon 9-6760 



178 



1 through, so there is not the buck passing. In this last 

2 legislative session -- 

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sayre, you are a minute 

4 over your time, 

5 MRo SAYRE: I am trying to go as fast as I can. 

6 In the last legislative session, sixteen bills passed 

7 the Senate, passed on down to the House, as unconstitu- 

8 tional. They said. We will let the House catch that. The 

9 House did catch it. Senator Duerr said, I want the 

10 Speaker to know that the House passed unconstitutional 

11 matters proposed by the Senate. To sum up, I think that i 

I 

12 we should lead off with what we regard as logical and 

13 that we should take this step for discussion so that if we ■^- 

14 decide that this is a more favorable way to do legisla- 

15 tion, there is time for the public to talk about it. 

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Wins low? 

17 DRo WINSLOW: Mr. Chairman, I should like to 

18 suggest as a political scientist that I am not intending 

19 to prophesy. I have no intention of suggesting where 

20 we will end up if we adopt unicameralism, because I 

21 don*t know. But I should like to point out that virtually 



Court Reporter$ 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuiMing 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Lexing'on 9-67*>C 



179 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



all of the political scientists in this country who have 
specialized at all in the field of State government 
favor the adoption of a unicameral system of legislation 
The few that are on the other side are conspicuous. 
Now, this doesn't make it profitable, but it does put 
some quality, I think, on proposition. If we were to 
do what was suggested here a few minutes ago, to follow 
tradition because we don't know where we will end up, 
if we depart from tradition, I suggest that this Commis- 
sion is wrong from the beginning for the reason that 
for forty years or so, the political scientists of this 
country have been saying our State Constitutions are too 
long. They say they ought to be brief and to the point. 
They are just now, constitutional conventions and con- 
stitutional writers are just now beginning to follow 
this advice. 

If we were to follow tradition, we would have 
kept the same old long Constitution that we have had. 
I should like to say only one other thing. As has been 
pointed out with the disappearance of a different basis 
of representation in the House and Senate, the chief 



C*url BeporlerM 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuilJing 
Baltimore 2, >{tr)UnJ 



Ltiitfton 9-6TeO 





180 




1 


reason for bicameralism had disappeared. The only reason 




2 


that remains that I can see is the argument of check 




3 


and balance, that one House reconsiders what the other 




4 


House has done, and thus we get safety in our legislation. 

* 




5 


I have been studying this matter of legislation longer 




6 


than anyone else in this room, chiefly for the reason 




7 


I have had more time to do it. But starting at least in 




8 


1927, which is at least thirty-nine years ago, I put a 




9 


great deal of attention to the question of State Legis- 




10 


latures. That qualifies me, perhaps, for an opinion. 




11 


I watched this business of checks and balances 




12 


with considerable care. I sat in a committee of a State 




13 


Legislature some years ago where bills from the other 




14 
15 


House were being considered. In 45 minutes that committee 

had 
disposed of 17 laws which they/never laid eyes on before 




16 


which they had no time to read, which they didn't even 




17 


give the substance of, and if you know as I suppose you 




18 


do, that the Houses of State Legislatures almost without 




19 


exception follow the instructions of their, the recom- 




20 


mendations of their committees, this is not, I would say, 




21 


careful reconsideration. Moreover, if you make a calendar 






THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

Court Keporurt Baltimore 2, Maryland Ltiingion 9-6760 

T 





181 



1 of the time schedule V7hen bills are introduced in each 

2 House and then pass over from one House to the other, you 

3 discover that the number of bills going to the second 
4: House in the last ten days of the session, and this is 

5 true in Maryland as it is true elsewhere, the number of 

6 bills going to the second House in the last ten days of 

7 the session are so large that there is not possibly time 

8 for careful reconsideration, and very few of them get 

9 careful reconsideration to the point that over and over 

10 again, and I can name cases where bills have been passed 

11 by one House without regard for the feelings of the 

12 author on the basis that the other House would catch 

13 them, and the other House hasn't caught them because they 

14 say, This bill has been carefully considered in the first 

15 House. It seems to me that this Commission would do v^ell 

16 to adopt the unicameral idea. 

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Michener? 

18 DR. MICH ENER: The point was made earlier that 

19 unicameral represents a new and untried system that we 

20 shouldn't adopt in the dark. I would just point out, in 

21 this country almost all cities have bicameral Legislature 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 
^ f» . r. • ' A «■ I 1 Lexington 9-6760 

Court Keforteri B.llimurc 2, Mar>U"J 



I •■ T 



182 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



for the City Council, and they proved unsatisfactory. 

The experience with unicameral Legislatures has made 

the system clearly familiar to the voters of the State. 

It has proved very successful, and we are embarking on a 

nev7 untried system. There is also the experience of 

Nebraska vjhich many people are familiar with there. 

Second, the question vjas raised about the 

possibility of hasty, ill-considered legislation. I 

would like to suggest here that the argument of the 

checks and balances arose years ago before we had things 

such as legislative councils to look at the matters at 

leisure, to draft a bill as carefully, to make sure 

all people are heard, and they were thoroughly considered 

It arose before the professional legislative drafting 

make 
services .could / sure the laws reflect the intent of 

the sponsors , and it arose before we put into our own 

Constitution that there has to be a three-day wait from 

the time the bill is drafted in its final form until it 

can be voted on. There is ample time for the press to 

pick it up and be in the papers for the people to have 

their voices heard in the Legislature. There can be 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK SALOVtON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Mir>lan<l 



Ltxinfioii 9-6T60 



183 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



nothing slipped over or on the sly or in the dark. In 
the requirement we have adopted that all votes must be 
recorded in the journal, there is no way for a person 
to vote on a bill and not have the people know how he 
voted. He can no longer dodge the issue and say, This 
is a compromise. I had to take, or I had to take it 
though I didn't like it, or have nothing. He stands 
clearly on the record for voting for or against the 
measure, and everyone knows how he stands. This seems 
to me that this alone is perhaps the greatest advantage 
of unicameralism in that it pinpoints responsibility, 
the voters can see how their representative stands and 
how he voted, and this in itself is perhaps the greatest 
check against hasty, unwise legislation. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brooks? 

MR. BROOKS: The experience of constitutional 
conventions has pretty well demonstrated if they have 
had any kind of reporter from a commission or board to 
work from, that the existing Constitutions of a State 
tend to be the minimum limits of change in regard to 
those proposed on a convention. Any reports submitted 



Court Rtportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable B-jilJing 
Balrimore 2, Mar)I»"<' 



Ltiinilon 9-oT60 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



184 



to a conuTiittee tend to be the maxirauin amount of change. 
There are very few and rare exceptions where a convention 
considers questions that involve more changes than are 
encompassed in a report to a convention. 

For that reason, I think, personally, that it 
is very important that the Commission consider not 
just having in its work book a unicameral document and 
the supporting papers for a particular viewpoint of that 
nature, but that it do more than that if it really feels 
that the subject of unicameralism deserves any significant 
attention by the Convention itself. I think it does 
deserve that amount of attention. Only this Conmission 
can really give it the attention and cast the light on it 
that would acquire that kind of regard in the Constitu- 
tional Convention. Moreover, I wanted to mention, in 
regard to the research our staff has done, that it is 
interesting to note the conference committees were only 
used on two occasions in the last Legislature for which 
that information is available, 1965, that the amount of 
second review, so to s^ak, of legislation passed in one 
House after it is sent to the other House amounts to 



Court Rrpon^n 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuiMing 
Baltimore 2, Mainland 



Ltxintton V-6T60 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



185 



approximately 7 per cent of the total amount of legis- 
lation of a State nature, excluding that of a local 
nature. So, if we were to follow under the proposal of 
the Committee on Local Government, Political Subdivisions, 
a home rule procedure eliminating from the Legislature 
the responsibility for local legislation and the State 
were just to consider State matters, if experience is 
any teacher, then the second review amounts to about 7 
per cent of that legislation and weighed against the 
price of that as compared to possible advantage of a 
unicameral legislation ytere each member is a more impor- 
tant legislator than he is in a bicameral system, since 
the spotlight of responsibility is directly upon the pro- 
ponents of each measure, since the proponent who intro- 
duces it and carries through a bill will pretty well be 
the determinant of the success or failure of the measure 
rather than relying on another House to take care of the 
measure which may be ill-conceived to begin with, each 
legislator would be given a great deal more service, 
secretarial and research as well as given an increase 
in salary. 



I 



Court Reporler$ 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTLNG SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Mar)IjntJ 



Lexington 9-6760 



186 



1 Perhaps the easiest way to reduce the cost of 

2 the legislative system if all of these measures are 

3 taken would be, rather than to reduce the representation 
^ of any segment of the State in both Houses, to have a 

5 maximum amount of representation by having the maximum 

6 number of legislative districts and yet the minimum num- 

7 ber of legislators which suggest a unicameral system and 

8 eliminating one House altogether with its overlapping 

9 representat j.on. There is a great deal to consnend it, and 
10 certainly enough so that it should be considered by a 

H constitutional convention. 

12 - MR^ BOND: I would like to ask Mr. Brooks a 

13 question. On our research, you said there were only a 
1^ certain percentage of conference committees. Is it not 

15 true your research did not disclose the great number of 

16 joint committees which investigated problems pressing to 

17 the State and took the problem back to both Houses? 

18 You show nothing cfbout joint committees of the Legisla- 

19 tive Council or of the two Houses that worked on the 

20 problem. 

21 MR. BROOKS: That is right. That is prior to 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

Ccur, Reporur, Baltimor. 2. Maryland Ltxint'on 9-6760 





187 




1 


the introduction of the legislation. 




2 


THE CHAIEMAN: Governor? 




3 


GOVERNOR LANE: I think that the request to 




4 


present the problem after all, we only recommend, at 




5 


times our debate goes to the extent of ultimate decision. 




6 


It is the Convention that is going to decide. I think, 




7 


and maybe because of my lack of knowledge of the resultant 




8 


operation of the unicameral system, I hesitate to give 




9 


up the bicameral system because with respect to informing 




10 


the public, oftentimes, unfortunately, the public isn't 




11 


advised as to what is going on and they catch up only 




12 


after it is done, and therefore, there is no reason to 




13 


further consider it. I did say v/hen I was talking to 




14 


one of the Committees that it is a good thing to have in 




15 


the bicameral system, no matter what is currently or has 




16 


been the trouble with it, that it even, and I reluctantly 




17 


say this, where there is opposition between two Houses, 




18 


it even benefits the Governor in knowing, hearing what 




19 


the opposition is although he is just upstairs on the 




20 


second floor. I know in my more distant experience that 




21 


it was very helpful to me, and I hesitate, although it is 






THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equiiablt Biiil.ling 

Ccut, Reporter, Baltimore 2. M.ryland t«.n<(o« 9-6:60 






» ■■ r 


.. 



10 



188 



•'■ raaybe more expensive to give up what I think we have had 

2 for such a long time, that is not a good reason. I know 

3 that, but you don't run with both feet at the same time, 
^ and ray hesitation is to keep what vze've got. I am in 

5 favor of having the presentation for any statement at 

^ all that can be made of the virtues of a unicameral 

'^ system. My feeling is that the degree of its importance 

° and on the assumption that I am wrong in my thinking, 

^ I think it ought to be presented to the Convention so 

that they can make up their minds. I am just in a posi- 

"*•■*■ tion V7here I don't like to give up the thing that I, 

^^ at times, had to live with and which I got so much help. 
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to state my views 

1^ before we take a vote. It seems to me that this is 

15 another of those situations where logic is perhaps at war 

1^ with tradition and experience, because it seems to me 

^^ that by and large the force of logic and the reasons of 

1^ logic are in favor of unicameral Legislature, although 

1^ I do not think this is wholly the case. 

However, it seems to me that our tradition and 
experience counts for a great deal, and some of the 



20 
21 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitabli- Building 

Courr Rtporler, Baltimore 2. Maryland t«xin«(on 9-6:t,0 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



189 



arguments that logically lead us towards the favoring of 
the unicameral legislation may not in actual practice 
lead us that way. The suggestion, for instance, that 
the unicameral Legislatures have V70rked well at the 
municipal level does not, it seems to me, demonstrate 
that they will V70rk well at the State level. It seems 
to me there are many differences in the operation of the 
State government and the local government. The fact 
that the system of check and balance in the bicameral 
Legislature has not V70rked too well in practice, in many, 
many instances, it has undoubtedly, but I think this is 
in large part due to the tremendous mass of local legis- 
lation with which the Legislature has had to contend 
and concomitant to that there is the notion of legislative 
courtesy, so that on a local bill neither House pays any 
attention to the merits or demerits, but goes along with 
what the senator or local delegation in the House will 
want . 

Hopefully, this will be ended with the taking 
away from the Legislature the power to pass local legis- 
lation. But it seems to me by the same token, we go 



Court Reporter a 



THE JACK SALOMON RKPORTINC SERVICE 
100 EquiUtle Buildin? 
Diltimorc 2, Mjr)UnJ 



Lexinilon 9-6r60 



190 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

19 

20 

21 



back perhaps to the arguments at the time of the forma- 
tion of our own country when they weren't confronted 
with these problems of mass legislation and were looking 
at it more in the abstract, and it seems to me that the 
arguments, then, in favor of bicameralism outweighed 
to some extent the arguments in favor of unicameralism. 

I think it is awfully close and myself, 
personally my view might change completely after the 
next session of the Legislature, because that is the 
first session of the Legislature when they are going to 
have one man, one vote principle in at least one House, 
although I think as Judge Adkins observed, we don't 
have exactly one man and one vote in both Houses. I 
don't think the two of them are necessarily equal. In 
any event, I think that the question is an important one 
and if the scales in my mind were decidedly in favor of 
unicameralism, I would unhesitantly vote in that way. 
They are in a state of imbalance, but weigh slightly in 
the way of bicameralism. That is the way I will vote. 

Dr. Bard, you may close. 

DR. BARD: Mr. Chairman, it is rather unusual 



Court Reporter* 



THE JACK SM.OMCN REPORTING SERVICE 
ICO Equilabit BuilJing 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltxir^tlon 9-6T60 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



191 



to move in one direction and speak in the other. I moved 
in terms of the Committee vote rather than my own feeling. 
If you think after I have spoken it will be better for 
another Member of the Committee to speak, I will be glad 
to do so. Our Committee V7as very, very sensitively 
balanced, and each Member of the Coirmittee has spoken 
but the Chairman of the Committee. My vote, like 
Mr. Eney's is one that is personally sensitively balanced. 
However, the balance V7eighs, as I would see it, in favor 
of unicameralism and I shall indicate very briefly why 
I will vote against this motion, which I made as a 
Committee Chairman. 

First, I have had the privilege of spending 
a good deal of time in Nebraska, and I have had the privil 
^e of watching the Nebraska Legislature in action. In- 
deed, Nebraska is my second State. I lived there ten 
summers and observed very carefully how the Legislature 
operates. I think it works efficiently, I think it works 
with dispatch, I think it works economically, and I think 
it works with a good deal of forethought. I have noted, 
too, that this matter of the structure for hearings and 



Court Reporter$ 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equilabic BuilJing 
Baltimore 2, Maryljnd 



Ltxinilon 9-6:69 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



192 



if you have had an opportunity to read the paper dealing 
with some of the reasons why the unicameral system has 
worked successfully in Nebraska, which we passed out, 
you will note there is time for the public to become 
acquainted with what is taking place, that the way the 
hearings are structured, and if you follow the history 
of the bill, you see that there are gaps within the 
structure so that the public could become aware of oc- 
c urrences . 

There is another reason which I think has 
application to Maryland, that is the dramatic change 
which George Norris brought to Nebraska created a new 
lever for interest on the part of the public as a whole. 
Almost overnight the people of Nebraska were excited about 
new opportunities which they had because there was a new 
structure. It may be true that inherently the differences 
were not sharp, but nevertheless it is important once 
in a while to move to a new structure when we think that 
it is significant. At our own hearings you will remember 
those in attendance, that many of the State senators in 
Maryland including the President of the State Senate 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2. Maryland 



Ltiinflon 9-6T60 



193 



1 indicated that they favored unicameralism because they 

2 felt that it would save a good deal of time and that 

3 ultimately, actually this matter being at cross purposes, 

4 was not true. 

5 Yet another reason I would like to mention is 

6 the fact that our balance V70uld become overcrowded, 

7 and not only is this bad within the symbol itself -- 

8 I know in some of our districts we have as many as eighty 

9 items on which to vote in the primary, in the last prim- 

10 ary -- not only is this indicative of the symbol of the 

11 primary, but indicative of the fact that there are so 

12 many people that one needs to relate if he lives in a 

13 particular legislative district. This is especially in 

14 a city like Baltimore, that there are complexities in 

15 this situation, and to have a smaller number of represen- 

16 tatives is indeed good. 

17 Now, I think, too, the mere fact that the 

18 model State Constitution which has been put together by 

19 people who have made years of study on this question, 

20 and here the recommendation was strongly in favor of uni- 

21 cameralism, I would like to indicate now one reason that 

has nr>f hpp n Tnp>nfinnpH ^a tn T.^hv T dn nnf fhink fh i fi 

THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICE 



Court Reporiert 



100 Equitable BuiiHing 
Billimore 2, Mar)!^"'! 



LtxiKilon 9-67i0 



194 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 
8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



whole question is one of complete balance on one side. 
You will note this has not been mentioned that the 
Nebraska State Legislature is nonpartisan. People are 
elected not on the basis of party representation. This 
is one thing that does concern me, for I do believe that 
the party system is important, and that the two parties 
of Maryland do have significance, and I tend to think 
perhaps the nonpartisan relationship of the Nebraska 
Legislature is something that might be troublesome, and 
I would like to call this to the attention of the Conven- 
tion itself. 

Just one point on this: It makes it a little 
bit more difficult to center the leadership role. They 
have found a way to get around this which I think is 
good. However, I think some of my colleagues would want 
to deal with this. As I weigh the scales, I weight them 
slightly in favor of unicameralism. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and Gentlemen, as we 
move into the vote on this very, very crucial question, 
I can't help but call your attention to the fact that the 
Commission, those present today are 25. We have a full 



Court Rvporten 



THE JACK S.'I.OMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equilable Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltxiniion 9-6T60 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



195 



Commission membership present except for Mr. Miles, who 
is ill, and Mr. Smith, who had to leave. 

Ready for the question? All those in favor 
of the recommendation of the Committee, which is in favor 
of bicameralism, please signify by a show of hands. A 
vote of Aye is in favor of bicameralism. All those 
opposed, or a vote No, is a vote in favor of unicameralism 
The vote is 13 to 12 . 

MR. SCANLAN: Mr. Chairman, I will ask for a 
reconsideration of the vote. I am not doubting the count 
of the Chair, but I have had a change of mind. 

THE CHAIRMAN: You voted in the affirmative? 

MR. SCANLAN: Yes. I shall now abstain. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I point out to you that doesn't 
help the recommendation because we would not have a recom- 
mendation, and we must have a recommendation. 

MR. SCANLAN: I withdraw my motion for recon- 
sideration. I wish I could have voted like Frank did in 
a couple of cases. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Bothe? 

MRS. BOTHE: I think a revote with an abstention, 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK SA.LOMON RF.POKTINC SERVICE 
100 Equitable Biiilding 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Lexington 9-6T60 



196 



1 the Chairman would have to break the tie, 

2 THE CHAIRT-IAN: It would be 12 to 12 with no 

3 recommend at ion. 

^ Any further discussion of the question of 

5 unicameralism? 

6 DR. BARD: Mr. Chairman, it is clear that 

7 this close vote will be called to the attention of the 

8 Convention. 

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes indeed. All the close 
votes are going to be noted in the Report, and the al- 

1^ ternate, of course, will be here, and I want to not 

12 leave the subject until we have considered the alternate. 

13 ' Mrs. Bothe? 

14 MRS. BOTHE: Dr. Bard's remark just now con- 

15 fused me; the vote we took in no way reflected any 

16 recommendiition regarding partisan or nonpartisan repre- 
IV sentation? 

18 THE CHAIRMAN: No, I don't think so. 

19 DR. JENKINS: The record should show that on 

20 the merits of unicameralism and bicameralism, the majority 

21 of the Commission is undoubtedly in favor of bicameralism. 



10 



THE J^CK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICL 
100 EqiiitaSlc BuilJing 
^ m. .•■«>< I 1 t«ii<if'<»i 9-6:t0 

Ccurl Ktp»rltrt Baltimore 2, ttrnTyliBd 



197 



1 This is just for the record. I am talking about on the 

2 merits, 

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? Now, 
^ Dr. Bard, you have presented with your Report a draft of 

5 an Article, Legislative Article to the Constitution 

6 which would provide for a unicameral Legislature, and 
V this would be included in our Report, and therefore 

8 be recommended in the sense that the language would be 

9 recommended. Can you, without too much time, indicate 

10 to us the basic chqnges or where they occur in this 

11 draft? 

12 DR. BARD: I will ask Dr. Michener to do it, 

13 because he was the chief draftsman of that segment. 

14 THE CHAIRMAN: I wondered if perhaps we can 

15 do it in this way. I don't want to waste time just 

16 repeating things, but in drafting the Legislative Article 
IV to provide for unicameralism, I assume that you have, to 

18 the extent possible and consistent with the unicameral 

19 Legislature, incorporated all other provisions that the 

20 Commission has heretofore approved. 

21 DR. MICHENER: Yes. 



THE IKCK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Buildinf .... 

... ... 1 J LmtuittoH 9-6. bO 

C«url Htp»rttr$ B.llimor* 2. M«0''«'"> 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



198 



THE CHAIRMAN: And I assume you made no 
changes in the draft except such as were absolutely 
necessary to fit into the scheme of unicameral Legisla- 
ture? . '■ ■ 

DR. MICHENER: That is right, based on the 
Seventh Report as acted on by the Commission. The only 
thing where the two Houses are referred to as the General 
Assembly and where it has a substantive change was pri- 
marily on impeachment. It is where you don't have a 
senate to try impeachment, it says, Once the Assembly 
brings impeachment proceedings, and impeaches the officer, 
trial V7ill be as provided by law. Otherwise, it follows. 

THE CHAIRiMAN: Were there any other than that, 
were there any others where the changes necessary were 
merely word changes, where they involved any kind of 
change of substance? 

DR. MICHENER: That is the only one of some 
substance. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Burdette? 

DR. BURDETTE: I have here the draft which 
was passed out last time, and the other Dr. Michener is 



Caurl KtptrltTM 



THE J^CK SALOMON RXPORTl.NC SERVICE 
100 Equitable Buildinf 
Biltimorr 2, Min'U"<l 



LtMUHtOH 9-i:60 



199 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



talking about is still making some changes in that. Now, 
for example, with respect to the — 

THE CHAIRMAN: The meeting of the session of 
the Legislature? 

DR. BURDETTE: Yes, the Governor may convene 
the Legislature in special session, but I think we voted 
upon the question of the majority of the Members of the 
General Assembly, 

DR. MICHENER: This was as v;as submitted last 
time. This hasn't been changed. 

THE CHAim^xAN: This will have to be further 
amended to incorporate the changes made last time. 

DR. BURDETTE: Can we obtain a consensus and 
save time that the vote we had last time on the two-House 
arrangement would apply to the one House? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I am going to assume, 
Dr. Burdette, that that is true inasmuch as we simply 
said we would draft an alternate provision. 

DR. BARD: One illustration of that is the 
impeachment power which V7e were assigned to adjust, 
Mr. Chairman, and Dr. Burdette, we v/ill make that adjust- 



Court Htportert 



THE JACK SALOMON RUPORTINC SERVICL 
100 Eqiiiublc BuilJint 
Bcltimore 2, Mar^'lind 



L**in$lon 9-i'60 



200 



1 ment in that case the same way as v;e v;l11 in the basic 

2 recommendation on bicameralism, 

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller? 

4 MR, MILLER: Have we ever decided whether 

5 these things are going to be three-fifths or two-thirds? 

6 THE CHAIRM-AN: That is on the ag^'^^^ ^or this 

7 session. There is a memo, and we have picked out the 

8 instances in which there is one or the other. We hope 

9 to decide that before this meeting is over, but net this 

10 afternoon. 

11 Any further discussion on unica^iera lism? 

12 Any question about the draft of the Legislative Article 

13 based on unicameral Legislature? V/ell then, that, I think 

14 concludes that special order of business. 

15 The next special order of business is the 

r 

i 

16 Sixth Report of the Committee on Political Subdivisions. 

I 

17 In connection v/ith that draft, there is another memc: 

i 

i 

18 there are two other memoranda, one called a staff memo, and 

19 the other called a proposed draft. Let me say a word as 

20 to the proposed draft, so it can be identified. This 

21 represents my efforts, so if you put the initials H.V.E. 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTI.NC SERVICE 

100 E.ijlijbl- Building 

Court Reporlm Baltimore 2, MjrylanJ ieii-ijffi idTiO 



201 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



on it, it might be identified. It was not intended to be 
circulated because it was dictated, and I didn't have a 
chance to read it over again. The Staff thought it might 
be desirable to have it before you. 

It is a Xerox paper, headed Constitutional 
Convention Commission Proposed Draft, Article 11, Local 
Government, and is four pages. 

(At this time a short recess was taken.) 

THE CHAIRMAN: All right, may we come to 
order? We now consider the third item of special busi- 
ness, the Sixth Report of the Committee on Political 
Subdivisions and Local Legislation. 

Mr. Clagett? 

MR. CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman, I cannot but men- 
tion at the outset the predominant sentiment of myself 
and the Committee as one, and that is, we never thought 
this day would come, and here it is. So here we go. 

You will recall that back on September 20 we 
began the consideration of what was then called a pre- 
liminary draft not for publication of a Fifth Report, and 
we had gone through the section there consisting of 



Court Ktporitr$ 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equiubic Buildinf 
Baltimore 2, M^oUnJ 



Lttiitiion 9-4.'60 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 



202 



of Section 11.01, Organization of Local Government, and 
Section 11.02, which was Powers of County Governments; 
and we suspended consideration of that preliminary draft 
at Section 11.03 which began with the structure of 
County government, and then left for consideration 11.04, 
City government. 

I would like to know the pleasure of the Chair 
whether we should continue with Sections 11.03 and 11.04 
dealing with the structure of County government and City 
government, and then come back to the matter that had been 
considered and the Committee directed to further con- 
sideration and make certain changes. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clagett, the various pro- 
visions dovetail to such an extent that I think it would 
be better to start at the beginning and take up each 
Section anew. The earlier Sections had been changed sub- 
stantially since the last meeting of the Commission, I 



18 


think. 


19 


MR. CLAGETT: On that basis, would you prefer 


20 


that we read section by section, and then open it up for 


21 


discussion? 




THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

Court Reporle,, Baltimore 2. Maryland Ltxin,lon <>-i:',0 



203 



1 THE CHAIRMAN: I think so. 

2 MR. CLAGETT: Because I would think there 

3 would be no useful statement. Let's dig right in. I am 

4 now referring to the Section 11.01 which is captioned, 

5 Units of Local Government, Subsection (a) The units of 

6 government within the State shall be regions, counties, 

7 and cities. (b) The General Assembly may provide by 

8 law for the creation, incorporation, changing, merging 

9 and dissolution of regions and counties. (c) For the 

10 purpose of this Constitution, Baltimore City shall be 

11 considered a county. (d) No other intergovernmental 

12 public corporations, commissions, authorities, boards, 

13 or special districts possessing the power to contract 

14 indebtedness, to collect taxes, or to collect revenues 

15 shall be created to perform any governmental function 

16 over an area smaller than the entire State. 

17 No new County shall be created without the 

18 consent of a majority of the voters voting thereon who 

19 reside within the area of the proposed County. The lines 

20 of a County shall not be changed without the consent of a 

21 majority of the voters voting thereon who reside within 



Court Keportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitublc Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



iMinfrsn 9-67<>0 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



204 



the area proposed to be transferred from one County to 
another. The lines of more than three contiguous Coun- 
ties, but less than all the Counties, shall not be 
changed without the consent of a majority of the voters 
of the State voting thereon. 

Now, the significant changes here are that 
we have captioned the Section, Units of Local Government, 
rather than OrganiEation of Local Government, and we 
have in Subsection (a) retained the concept of Baltimore 
City being treated as a County, thus making 24 Counties 
throughout the State; and we have given definition to 
municipal corporations as a phrase. We have there defined 
it to mean a city, to-.v-n or village but shall not include 
Balt5-more City or any County. 

THE CHAIPl-Ii\N: Any questions? 

JUDGE ADKINS: I think the v;ord , incorporated, 
ought to precede the words, city, town or village. It 
doesn't mean wh^t it says. It doesn't mean a village. 

THE CHAIKMAN: Mr. Clagett? 

MR. CLAGETT: Let me see. Judge. I don't 
think I understand your point. 



Cour$ Reporiers 



THE JACK SALOMON BF.PORTI.NC SERVICE 
100 Equitable Bunding 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Lexington 9-6T60 



205 



1 JUDGE ADKINS: Municiapl corporations shall 

2 mean an incorporated city, town or village. It 

3 obviously doesn't mean a village. 

4r THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to me the point is 

5 well taken. You mean only a city, town or village which 

6 is incorporated and is exercising powers of government? 

7 MR. CLAGETT: That is the meaning, and if it 

8 clarifies the meaning by including the word, incorporated, 

9 in front of, city, I v;ould have no objection; and I don't 

10 believe the Committee would. 

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection? In 

12 the third line of 11.01, strike the word, city, and 

13 add, incorporated. Any further question about 11.01 (a)? 

14 MR. CASE: Mr. Chairman, are we going to be 

15 allowed to come back to this? 

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. You can't very well pass 

17 I finally until you get the whole picture in front of you. 

18 Any further questions now about Section 11.01 (a)? If 

19 j not, 11.01 (b) . 

20 Dr. Bard? 

21 DRo BARD: May I ask Mr. Clagett as to why 



Court Rvporiert 



THE JACK SALOMON RtPORTINC SERVICE 
100 Equilablr BuiMing 
Baltimore 2, Maryland . 



Ltxiitficn 9-6760 



206 



1 the, lines of more than three contiguous Counties? 

2 MR. CLAGETT: That is in Subsection (b) . 

3 DR. BARD: That is correct. 

4 MR. CLAGETT: And with respect to Subsection 

5 (b) , it was thought there should be a referendum pro- 

6 vided with some degree of inflexibility to boundary 

7 changes, and it V7as thought that v^here a new County was 

8 being created, certainly the persons residing v/ithin that 

9 area of the proposed new County should be given the 

10 referendum choice. Similarly, where a change of County 

11 boundaries was being contemplated, it v7as thought that 

12 the persons within the area of proposed change should 

13 be given a choice. Then, the choice of three or more, 

14 that is more than three was determined upon by the Com- 

15 mittee as requiring a referendum of the State at large 

16 because it gave a measure of protection, but a measure of 

17 built-in referendum rather than the permissive referen- 

18 dum provided for generally in the Constitution, and 

19 there would be three; and then further, the three ties 

20 in with classification v/here at least three Counties will 

21 be included in any one classification. 



Court Rtportvr$ 



THE J^CK SM.OMON REPOr.Tl.NG SERVlCt 
100 Kqwiliiblr Buil.img 
Bdiiniorr 2, Mar)ldnJ 



Lttinflon VtTM 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



207 



THE aiA IRI^IAN : Mrs. Bo the? 

MRS. BOTHE: Did the Cormiittee consider V7hether 
it might not be adv is ible also to permit those in the 
County to v;hich another County or part of a County would 
be annexed to participate in a decision as to whether 
this should occur? I am referring nov7 to the provision 
that the majority of the voters to reside within the 
area proposed to be transferred shall have to agree to 
the transfer. What about those to whom they are being 
attached? 

MR. CLAGETT: Yes, that was considered, and 
this does represent a compromise insofar as the thinking 
of the Committee is concerned and w^as the choice made 
by the Committee. 

THE CHAIKMAN: Mr. Sykes? 

MR. SYKES: Do you or do you not require the 
concept of the majorities of the voters of the State 
voting thereon within each County? 

THE CHAIRI^IAN: The general referendum pro- 
vision is what he is referring to there. No referendum 
required under this Section. 



Court Reportert 



THE JACK SALOMON KF.POKTINC SERVICL 
100 Fquitablr Building 
Baltimore 2, ManUnJ 



Leiinflon 9-6760 



208 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



MR. CLAGETT: Measure of built-in referendum. 

MR. SYKES: VJhat is the theory of requiring 
where more than three but less than all do it, but not 
requiring it vjhen all of them are changed? 

MR. CLAGETT: If the Legislature is going to 
tamper with the change of boundary lines, then V7e V7ant 
a restriction. If it is going to do a clean sweep job, 
we want them to have the degree of flexibility that 
seems to be the v7hole design and purpose of a new Con- 
stitution. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I take it that one of the 
thoughts you had in mind is if the Legislature wanted 
to abolish all Counties and create five or ten larger 
units, this would not require any referendum? 

MR. CTj\GETT: That is correct. 

THE C1IAIR24AN: Mr. Miller. 

MR. MILLER: Suppose there is a change in four 
Counties? Will that require tv70 referendums? In other 
v7ords , do the people concerned have to approve it and 
also the State as a v^hole approve it? 

MR. CIJ^.GETT: No, it would be the State as a 



Court RtportetB 



THE JACK SM.OMON RF.I'OnTl.NC SERVICK 
100 Eqirllahir Bui'Ming 
Baltiniorr 2, Mjr)l.(nJ 



LtMinflon 9i7k0 



209 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



whole only. 

MR. MILLER: Does it say that? 

MR. CLAGETT: Yes, more than three, meaning 
four, vzould require a vote of the State as a v;hole. 

MR. MILLER: But it also says up there that 
anything that changes the County line without the con- 
sent of the majority of the voters therein residing. 
That is the only reason I brought up the point. It looks 
to me like it would require two referendums unless you 
change the v7ording. 

MR, SAYRE: The v7ord contiguous. 

THE CHAIRl^IAN: Just a second, Mr. Sayre. 

Mr. Clagett, can you answer the question? 

MR. CLAGETT: I think the word, contiguous , 
gives you the ans\-7er . 

MR. MILLER: Unfortunately, you don't get four 
contiguous Counties, but each one might be bordering on 
the other, and the V70rd , contiguous, has a lot of legal 
implications . 

MR. CLAGETT: I think, too, as you follow the 
sequence of thought expressed in each of the sentences. 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SAIOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 F.r,uiIaLlf Builliiig 
Bal'.iniore 2, Maryland 



Letinitor\ ')-6Tf>0 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



210 



I think that clarifies so that if the lines, if you are 
going to change the lines and then hov; many Counties 
are going to be affected, and then you get dovrn to more 
than three, I think that tends to clarify. 

MR. MILLER: I understood v;hat you meant, but 
it might open up litigation. That is the only point. 

THE CHAIR^LAN: Mr. Clagett, it seems to me 
that Mr. Miller's point is v;ell taken, as I understand 
it. He is suggesting that if you make a change in, say 
Dorchester, Worcester and V7icoinico, transferring some 
of the land out of V/icomico to Dorchester and some to 
Worcester -- you have to have a fourth County in there -- 
put Talbot in, V70uld you then have to have a State wide 
referendum and a local referendum for each of the Counties 
losing territory? 

MR. CLAGETT: No, the Committee in that 
situation requires only a State v/ide referendum. 

THE CHAIRMAN: But your second sentence would 
seem to require also the referendum of the people in 
V7icomico v7ho are going to be transferred to Dorchester 
or Worcester. 



Court Rfporiert 



THE JACK S^'OMON RKl'OKTING SERVICE 

100 Eq'nl^lhl.: Buil.iing 
Djltimore 2, Maryland 



Lexington 9-6T6Q 



211 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



MR. CLAGETT: I think the second sentence, the 
last sentence really indicates that more than three are 
affected, and that \70uld then require the referendum of 
the State at large. 

MR. MILIZR: VJouldn't it also require the 
consent of the other? That is the point I am trying to 
clear up as to V7hether you have the consent. 

MR. CLAGETT: That is not the intent of the 
Committee . 

MR. MILLER: I didn't think it was, so don't 
you think you better change it? 

MR. CLAGETT: If you refer back to the Fifth 
Report, we had language there which did tend to clarify 
it, and it read rather than of the voters residing V7ithin 
the areas proposed to be transferred from one County to 
another, and it was the thinking of the Commission at 
that time that that v;as surplusage, and v;e were directed 
to consider striking it out. Now, the thought is that 
if there is any confusion, we could put those v.'ords back 
in, and the sentence would then read, The lines of more 
than three contiguous Counties but less than all the 



Court Reporter* 



THE JACK S'.I.OMCIN KF.PORTI.SG SERVICE 
100 ZquilobU Buil.Iing 
Bal'.iniurc 2, Maryl.inJ 



Leiintion 9-6. 'ftO 



1 



212 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



Counties sha3.1 not be changed without the consent of a 
majority of the voters of the State voting thereon rather 
than of the voters residing v;ithin the area proposed to 
be transferred from one County to the other.. 

Thus it would be clear that there would only 
be the one referendum. 

MR. MILLER: I think there ought to be some 
clarifying language for this reason. I can picture 
where you have a majority State wide for a referendum, 
and somebody might bring a suit under this and say you 
didn't get a majority of X-County, 

THE CHAIRJIAN: Mr. Sykes? 

MR. SYKES: The real problem here from a 
drafting point of view is that the last sentence is an 
exception to the sentence that went before, and I think 
that it can be very easily changed to accomplish vjithout 
awkwardness the point that Congressman Miller has in 
mind. It would read. The lines of a County shall not be 
changed v;ithout the consent of the majority of the voters 
voting thereon who reside within the area proposed to be 
transferred from one County to another, except the lines 



Court Reporlers 



THE JACK SAIOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICE 
100 Eqiiitdblc Buil>1in« 
Baltimore 2, MjrylanJ 



LtMinflon 9-6760 



i 

i 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



213 



of three contiguous Counties, may be changed v;ith the 
majority of the voters of the State voting thereon. 

THE CHAIRIIAN: May I suggest to you that you ne 
in connection with it another change, Mr. Clagett, and 
that is something to indicate that V7hat you are talking 
about here is one bill, one act, one law changing the 
lines of more than three contiguous Counties. You are 
not talking about a situation where the Legislature in 
one session may pass six bills, changing separately the 
lines of six Counties, is that correct? 

MR. CLAGETT: That is correct. 

THE CllAIRI-IAN: So that, Mr. Sykes , maybe you 
can doctor your language a little, 

MR. SYKES: May be changed by a bill. 

THE CHAIRl'IAN: The law is the expression we 
are using. 

MR. SYKES: By a law. By law, would mean -- 
law could be several, but a law — 

MR. CLAGETT: I think the v;ord , contiguous, 
takes care of that. 

MR. SYKES: No, they could do it by separate 



Court Reporter* 



THE JACK SAIOMON R?:PORTI\C SERVICE 
100 Zquitable Building 
Baltimore 2. MarjIanJ 



Ltjington 9-6T60 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
16 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



214 



bill. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hargrove? 

MR. HARGROVE: Wouldn't that hold true also 
for the first sentence because it seems to rae if we are 
just talking about the second and third sentences, you 
would also have tv70 referendums, possibly have tv70 
referendurns and the rest of it because conceivably if 
you had four Counties consolidate into one, you V70uld 
have a similar situation, wouldn't you? If you created 
a new County as opposed to the boundaries, V70uldn't 
that be true? 

THE CHAIPvMAN: I think this is true. I am 
afraid this is a problem of drafting that V7e can't accora- 
plish in this large a meeting. Is it the intent of the 
Committee, and we can have the Commission decide if it 
agrees with it, that the first two sentences of this 
paragraph provide for situations where there shall be a 
local referendum, but if a situation covered by the third 
sentence is involved, you V7ill have a State wide refer- 
endum but no local referendum. 

MR. CLAGETT: That is the intent of the Committ^;e 



Court Reporten 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Buil.linr; 
Ballimorc 2, Marjlaml 



Lexinflon 0-6'fiO 



( 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14: 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



215 



THE CHAIRMAN: And the third sentence contem- 
plates a change involving the line of more than three con- 
tiguous Counties by one law. 

MR. CLAGETT: That is correct. 

MR. SYKES: If that is the case, doesn't it 
mean it is a restriction as to form only, v;hich doesn't 
mean very much, and the Legislature could circumvent it 
by passing separate bills? It seems to me that any res- 
triction in the Constitution ought to be a meaningful 
restriction that can't be evaded by parliamentary hanky- 
panky. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I think the intent of the Com- 
mittee, and you will have to amplify this, Mr. Clagett, 
was that they V7ere requiring the State wide referendum 
not because the Legislature changed the lines of more 
than three Counties, but because they were changing the 
lines in one deal, one package, so to speak. 

MR. SYKES: It is quite often that for par- 
liamentary reasons essentially a single deal or package 
is introduced into tvvO, three or four bills, and I wonder 
whether you are really reaching the policy question if you 



Court Rvpori€T$ 



THE JACK SALOMON RKPOKTLNG SERVICE 
100 Fquitablr BuilJinp 
Baltimore 2, ^fJr)U^d 



Lexington 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



216 



limit it to a single bill. 

THE CHAIRMAN: But if you did that separately 
by separate bills under this concept of the Coirjiiittee, 
each would then be subject to a separate local referendum 
of a different group of people, so it would be exceedingly 
hazardous for one to accomplish or try to accoraplish a 
composite change by that manner. At least, that is my 
understanding of the position of the Committee. 

MR. CLAGETT: That is correct. Actually, the 
Committee, or this represents a compromise of the think- 
ing of the Conznittee v/hich really had as its opposite 
extremes no referendum whatsoever in order to give 
complete flexibility insofar as boundary change and a 
degree of flexibility in order to protect against such 
inflexibility, and by reason of the desire to give expres- 
sion to different factors that I think are clearly en- 
compassed in the thinking of this Section, we arrived at 
the restraint and the lact of restraint. 

THE CHjMRI-I^.N: Now, Mr. Miller. 

MR. MILLER: I just wanted to insert a word of 
warning to whoever revi7ords this. It just so happens I 



Court ReporterM 



THE JACK SALOMON aEPORTlNG SERVICE 

lUO Equiuble Building 
BaltiinDTc 2, Maryland 



Lexington ^-67 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

15 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



217 



have been poring through some decisions on contiguous. 
Don't rely on it. When you get into the word, contiguous, 
it is like Governor Lane's research on autonomous. It 
can be construed more than one way and you are just 
looking for a lawsuit, I am afraid. It doesn't neces- 
sarily always mean what you and I think contiguous means. 

THE CHAIRiMAN: Mr. Delia? 

MR. CLAGETT: We had understood it to mean 
adjoining, that means touching, in proximity. 

MR. MILLER: That is what I thought it meant, 
too, but there are cases that hold it to the general 
neighborhood . 

THE CHAIP21AN: Mr. Delia? 

MR. DELLA : Mr. Chairman, I have tvzo questions, 
one is, as I read this, it appears to me that, say for 
instance, Prince Georges and Montgomery County, if they 
decided to become one County, just the voters of those 
tv;o Counties could decide that they could dissolve their 
lines and become one County. Now, at the same time, it 
also raises a question. 

THE CHAIR^L^N: Are you stating thet as your 



Court Rfportert 



THE J\CK ?At.OMON KF.PCRTINC SERVICE 
100 EquitaLIc Building 
Baltimore 2, MaryL^ri 1 



LeMinglon 9 -67^0 



218 



1 
2 

5 

4 

6 

6 

7 

6 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



understanding? 

MR. DELLA: That is the way I understand it. 

THE CHAIRMAN: That is not my understanding 
of what the Committee intended. 

MR. DELLA: No ne\<j County shall be created -- 

THE CHAIR2>IAN: The Legislature acts first. 

MR. CLAGETT: The Counties are the creatures 
of the Legislature. It would require an act of the Legis 
lature. 

MR. DELLA: Creating one County instead of 
two Counties, then the voters would vote on it, is that 
right? 

MR. CLAGETT: That is right, the voters of the 
two Counties. 

MR. DELLA: The second question would be, 
supposing, for instance, there would be a group in Howard 
County who would also along with Montgomery pass the same 
similar bill, that they would be joined as one County, 
and yet it would be less than a majority vote in Howard 
County that would want to be absorbed by Montgomery 
County. Would that take the whole complex of the vote 



Court Rvporten 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltxinflon 9-6T60 



219 



1 from Montgomery and Hov^ard County combined? 

2 MR. CLAGETT: It would be the voters voting 

3 between the area of the proposed new County. Therefore, 

4 it would include that portion of Howc^rd, that portion of 

5 Montgomery, and that portion of Prince Georges, and the 

6 remaining portion of Howard, but not half of both. 

7 MRo DELLA: I am not talking about Prince 

8 Georges at all in this particular issue. You have two 

9 County lines. You have Montgomery County and Howard 

10 County, tv-;o separate Counties, and supposing the legis- 

•11 lators of these two Counties decided they would annex 

12 or let Montgomery County absorb Howard County and make 

13 one County out of it. If the Legislature passed this bill 

14 as such and the voters would then act on it, would only 

15 the voters of Howard County have the right to say that 

16 they don't want to be annexed by Montgomery County, or 

17 would the combined vote of Howard and Montgomery County 
IB be the deciding factor? 

19 MR. CLAGETT: It would be those voters within 

20 the new County being created which would be the extended 

21 liaes, and therefore the voters within those extended 



Court Htporttrt 



THE UCK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Eiiuitable BuiKling 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



"T 



Lt'inllon 96760 



220 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



1 ine s . 

MR. DELLA: Then, Howard County could be 
absorbed by Montgomery County even against the wishes 
of the people in Howard County? 

MR. CLAGETT: That is correct, because the 
majority would be the total within the entire area. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sayre? 

MR. SAYRE: Mr. Clagett, in regard to the 
referendum, right now our existing referendum that the 
Commission has acted upon allows for 5 per cent of the 
voters that voted in the last gubernatorial election, is 
that right? 

MR. CLAGETT: That is right. 

MR. SAYRE: This would require an addition 
for the Legislature to be able to submit this to the 
people, is that right? 

MR. CLAGETT.: Where less than all the Counties 
were affected? 

MR. SAYRE: Well, either way, in order to 
effect any of these changes here, this would require an 
additional provision in the referendum, would it not, to 



Court Keporter$ 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTI.NC SERVICE 
100 Equilabic B^il.Iinc 
Balttmure 2, Maryland 



Lttinilan 9tTtiO 



221 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

6 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



bypass the petitioning aspect? 

MR. CLAGETT: Yes. That would be a built-an 
referendum protection. 

THE CHAIRI-IAN: I don't follow you at all. 
What provision would you talk about would bypass the 
referendum? 

MR. SAYRE: This assumes -- 



THE CtlAIRl-IAN: What is this you are referring 



to? 



MR, SAYRE: This v/hole paragraph starting 
with, No nev7 County. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Assumes vjhat? 
. MR. SAYRE: Assumes that the Legislature 
would submit to referendum or to the State as a whole any 
of these changes. 

THE CHAIRMAN: That does not bypass the 
general referendum provision because of a bill that fell 
within only the first sentence, and under the terras of 
this provision be subject only to a local referendum, be 
petitioned to a referendum on a State wide basis. 

MR. SAYRE: The way this reads, it doesn't 



C«url Htpofitrt 



THE JACK SAtOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 EquiubU B^ilJing 
Baltimorp 2, Mjo'^"*' 



L**in$ien 9i760 



222 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



say anything about petition. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Because the general referendum 
provision would cover it unless it is passed by -- well, 
even then -- 

MR, SAYRE: How would this get proposed? 

THE CHAIRMAN: The bill itself could not take 
effect under the Constitution unless it were approved at 
a referendum. 

MR. SAYRE: And the referendum could not even 
get to a position unless it had a petition? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, it could. You would 
be providing for it in the bill itself. 

MR, SAYRE: According to the existing refer- 
endum provision you have, you have to have a petition. 

THE CHAIRMAN: This is a separate referendum. 

MR. SAYRE: Does this bill end the referendum 
provision, then? 

MR. CLAGETT: In those cases, yes, in those 
cases where it applies, it would be a buHt-in referendum, 
and if the permissive referendum were also applied, it 
would be two referendums, a State as a whole, and of the 



Court Beporltrt 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PGRTINC SERVICE 
100 Eqii!iabU Building 
Baltimore 2, Mar)'l*^n<^ 



L*Min$lon 9-t'bO 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

16 

19 

20 

21 



223 



affected area. 

MR. SAYRE: I would suggest in the referendum 
section something to the effect, except as provided in 
this Section. 

MR. CLAGETT: No, that isn't the thinking of 
the Committee. 

MR. MINDEL: Dr. Wins low distinguishes this 
and calls it a compulsory referendum, and the other is 



permissive 



MR. CLAGETT: That would be a correct charac- 



terization. 

MR. DELLA: I think this is setting up a pretty 
bad proposition. For instance, Baltimore City, as I 
understand it, can make a deal with the legislators of 
Anne Arundel County who may not be concerned about 
running any more, if they get paid off enough to do what 
is necessary, and I am being practical, to get a bill 
passed. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Let me stop you right there. 
When you say, legislators of Anne Arundel County, what 
do you mean? Members of the Council? 



C0urt Repcriert 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, M^nl'iJ 



Lttingtoii 9-6T60 



y:\ 



224 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



MR. DELLA: Yes, the Anne Arundel County 
delegation. 

THE CHAIRMAN: It would have to be passed by 
the Legislature, though, not just for those two Counties. 

MR, DELLA: I recognize that, I recognize how 
some of them operate, but I am using this as a supposi- 
tion. If Baltimore City would want to take in Anne 
Arundel County, which they wanted to do for a number of 
years anyway, and they would get their legislation passed 
aid come to the voters for a decision, the voters in 
Baltimore City are going to outweigh the voters in Anne 
Arundel County by a vast majority. 

THE CHAIRMAN: You are talking about taking 
over the whole of Anne Arundel County? 

MR. DELLA: There is nothing to prevent it. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I know, but if it is anything 
less than the whole of Anne Arundel County, then under 
the second sentence Anne Arundel County voters could 
veto it . 

MR. CASE: It is only the voters who live in 
the area to be transferred. 



Caurl Ktp«ritrt 



THE J^CK SALOMON REPORTING SER\ ICK 
100 Equitablf Buildirg 
Baltimore 2, M^nl""' 



LttiHglOH 9-6.*60 





225 




1 


THE CHAIR>1AN: That would be the Anne Arundel 




2 


County. 




3 


MR, CASE: I think there was some misinforma- 




4 


tion given out here when Mr. Delia asked in the case he 




5 


proposed whether it would be the combined vote of every- 




6 


body or just the vote of the area to be transferred. 




7 


THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is a question of 




8 


doubt. Mr. Clagett answered the question on the basis 




9 


not that four-fifths of the County was added to the first 




10 


County, but that on the basis that tv70 whole Counties 




11 


were put together. He read this then as the construction 




12 


of a new County. 




13 


MR. CLAGETT: That is correct. 




14 


THE CHAIRMAN: And that would come under the 




15 


first sentence as written, and it becomes very doubtful. 




16 


I don't think it is at all clear. 




17 


MR. CASE: No, none of it is, as a matter of 




18 


fact. 




19 


DR. BURDETTE: It seems to me the way this is 




20 


worded, if the Legislature provided that Anne Arundel 




21 


County would be a part of Baltimore City, herein called 






THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable BuilJin«; 

Cur. Htperler. B.Itimore 2. M^nl^J Uxinglon 9.6760 

■ 





226 



1 the County, that the vote thereon would be as Mr. Delia 

2 suggested in the two combined — well, I misstated myself. 

3 If the transfer were made from Anne Arundel to Baltimore 

4 City, that the vote would have to be in Anne Arundel, 

5 because the perfectly obvious thing to do, just change 

6 the name, then that is a new County, and that would 

7 require by the v/ording of the language a majority in 

8 the two parts of the new County which would permit 

9 Baltimore City to determine that. Baltimore City would 

10 have to change its name to do it . 

11 THE CHAIRMAN; You draw a conclusion I don't 

12 follow. The change of a County's name is not the creation 

13 of a new County. If you change the name of Baltimore 

14 City to something else, Patapsco Heights, I don't think 

15 that would be the creation of a new City. 

16 DR. BURDETTE; This would be a tremendous bit 

17 of litigation. 

18 THE CHAIRMAN: I quite agree. I wonder if the 

19 Committee really cares about it, and if what you really 

20 care about is simply that the lines of a County cannot 

21 be changed without the consent of the majority of the 



C«url Ktp«rier$ 



THE MCK SALOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuilJinf 
Baltimore 2, M^ryUnd 



f,«iin(ro<i 9-6T60 



227 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



voters who reside within the area proposed to be trans- 
ferred, regardless of whether this results in simply 
adding to one County or creating a new County. I think 
this becomes almost a distinction with a difference. 

MR. CLAGETT: Not quite, because we really 
anticipate two entirely different things here. If the 
Legislature wants to create a new County by consolidating 
two existing Counties into one, then the thought was that 
there should be a degree of flexibility that would 
permit that to be accomplished and using the example 
that Mr. Delia gave us of Baltimore City taking over and 
Anne Arundel County, and then becoming one County, the 
Committee's thinking is that we favor the consolidation 
of Counties. We would like to avoid as much restriction 
upon that process as possible. 

Therefore, the majority resting in Baltimore 
City and the majority wanting to acquire Anne Arundel, it 
could be accomplished notwithstanding the objections of 
Anne Arundel County. If it was going to take less than 
all of Anne Arundel County, only a part of it, then we 
felt that would be tampering with boundary lines, and we 



C#url Mep^rterM 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.POKTl.NC SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuilJinc 
Baltimore 2, Mao'""' 






228 



1 wanted to avoid that kind of tampering. Therefore, those 

2 persons within the area of Anne Arundel County to be 

3 taken from Anne Arundel and moved to Baltimore County 
4r would have a referendum choice. 

5 THE CHAIRMAN: But it seems to me that you 

6 get into awkward situations. Suppose you had a bill that 

7 proposed that all of Baltimore County except the Fifth 

8 District should be added to Baltimore City, and the Fifth 

9 Election District of Baltimore County should be added 

10 to Carroll County. 

11 MR. CLAGETT : Then you have two entirely 

12 separate situations, and that district would have a 

13 choice. 

14 THE CHAIRMAN: All was remaining a part of 

15 the County. But then contrast that with a situation, 

16 instead of doing that, the Legislature adds all of Balti- 

17 more County to Baltimore City, then none of Baltimore 

18 County has a choice. ' 

19 MR. CLAGETT: The thinking of the Committee 

20 was to favor consolidation, but to discourage tampering. 

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Consolidation doesn't mean 



Cmurt Kepcrlerl 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTl.NC SERVICE 
lOO Equitable BuilJinf 
Baltimore 2, Mjr>'^"<' 



LtMiKtlom 9tT60 



229 



1 all of one County to all of another. It would be just 

2 as much a consolidation if you used the first example 

3 I suggested, that all of Baltimore County except the 

4 Fifth District be added to Baltimore City and the Fifth 

5 District would be added to Carroll County. 

6 MR. CASE: Just to put this into focus, 

7 under the present Constitution, if two Counties are going 

8 to consolidate, then you need an act of the General 

9 Assembly consolidating and a majority vote in .each of 

10 the Counties before the consolidation can take place. Is 

11 this not true? 

12 MR. CLAGETT: That is correct. 

13 MR. CASE: And this would change it to provide 

14 not for a majority vote in each of the areas to be con- 

15 solidated into one, but a majority of the entire area? 

16 MR. CLAGETT: That is correct. 

17 MR. SCANLAN: It looks to me like the Committee 

18 wants to protect against petty larceny but not grand 

19 larceny. 

20 MR. CLAGETT: And that is entirely true. 

21 MR. SAYRE: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of how 



Ccurl Keporltrt 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICE 
100 Equilabl. BuilJing 
Baltimore 2, MaryUnd 



Lttiniion 9tT60 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



230 



hard the Committee has struggled for this concept and the 
drafting may draw it closer to the concept, but I ques- 
tion the basic premise here of the manner in which you 
mandatorily require referendum for these changes. Here 
is the principle that is more logical, that it be per- 
missive referendum submitted by the Legislature only, and 
that if the Legislature did not submit any of the County 
lines to referendum, you could still bring it up under 
the other part of the referendum through petition to tie 
the hands of the Legislature, and almost chance that it 
may or may not pass. The way this is, it seems to me unv^ise 
to allow one area of the State to vote down what the 
whole State may benefit from. It seems to me capricious 
to the general welfare of the State as a whole, and as 
long as we don't prevent referendum from getting into the 
picture which it could do through the petition right, 
it would seem to me wiser not to have the referendum as 
stipulated here. 

THE CHAIRMAN: You would eliminate the entire 



paragraph? 



MR. SAYRE: Eliminate the entire paragraph 



C0uri Rrpoften 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2. MjoUnd 



LtMimfton 9-4,'60 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



except as to the permissiveness of the Legislature decid 
ing whether or not to submit it to referendum. 

THE CHAIFMAN: So you don't need anything on 
that? 

MR. SAYRE: Unless ve do have it, the Legis- 
lature cannot now do it, can they? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Why not? 

MR. SAYRE: Under the new proposed Constitu- 
tion. The only Article we have is on petition. 

THE CHAIRMAN. The Legislature can submit 
a matter to referendum or pass a law. There certainly 
isn't anything that says you can't in the existing 
Cons it ut ion. 

DR. WINSLOW: I thought there was a court 
case on that that said they couldn't, a Legislature can- 
not submit the matter to a referendum of the people of 
the State. 

THE CHAIRMAN: If there is , I am not familiar 
with it. Certainly, unless I am very much "wrong, there 
have been bills that the Legislature has passed and sub- 
mitted to referendum. 



Cmurl Heiioften 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICE 
100 Equitable Builiiinf 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



L»tinti9n 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



232 



MR. SAYRE: Under the present Constitution, 
but under our Section at present all we submit is a 
petition. I mean, under our present draft, don't we 
allow both ways? 

THE CHAIRMAN: We don't say anything about 
referendum except by petition. 

MR. CASE: Mr. Chairman -- 

MR. CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman, I might suggest 
the position of the Committee. We spent hours debating 
the pros and cons, and you can still spend hours ending 
up where you started from. The idea was to give the 
General Assembly a degree of flexibility in order to 
alter the boundaries of all the Counties, and if ultim- 
ately the time comes that the Counties should be dissolved 
and areas or regional redsitricting are brought into 
play, then the General Assembly should have that degree 
of flexibility and be subject only to a State wide per- 
missive referendum. But something short of that should 
give to the areas that are affected a degree of protec- 
tion, and this represents a compromise that was arrived 
at with great, great difficulty; and I suggest that we 



Court Hepcfterg 



THE J^CK SALOMON RF.PORTl.NC SERVICE 
100 tquilabU Buililing 
Baltimore 2, Mao'l<i>i<l 



£**iii((oii 9-i7M 



233 



1 can go back and further consider it for clarification, 

2 but I would suggest that this gives what we are trying 

3 to do, namely, a degree of protection to the area affected 
^ where it is less than whole reorganization. 

5 THE CHAIRJIAN: Mr. Case? 

6 MR. CASE: Mr. Chairman, I am disturbed, 

7 really, about the, possibility of big Counties taking 

8 smaller Counties over without an approval of the majority 

9 of the voters in the County that is taken over. Now, 

10 as I understand it, in all legal combinations except 

11 this one that I ever heard about, the corporate situa- 

12 tions, for example, where you either have a consolidation 

13 or a merger, it is necessary before this can be made 

14 legal, to have a percentage, usually two-thirds, but 

15 certainly a majority of the vote of each of the entities 

16 which are to be taken over. 

17 ' Now this situation, though, departs from that 

18 general principle and says in effect that if, that a 

19 majority of the smaller units can be opposed to be taken 

20 over and yet they can be swallowed up. If you keep mul- 

21 tipl^ing this as Bob Martineau suggested to me a few 



Caurl Rtporleri 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTI.NC SERVICE 
100 t:qtiilable Builclinf 
Baltimorr 2, M.r^Und 



LtMingltH 9-6760 



234 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



minutes ago, you can imagine where you get bigger and 
bigger, and you can take over the whole State without 
having the people who are taken over at all vote in 
favor of it. As it gets bigger, all you need is a 
majority. To put the thing in proper focus, I would move 
that the paragraph that we are now discussing and appear- 
ing on Page 2 be amended to provide that^ whenever a new 
County shall be proposed to be formed out of portions of 
two or more Counties, the consent of the majority of the 
legal voters of such part of each County or Counties 
respectively shall be required. 

MR. MAKTINEAU: I second it. 

THE CHAIRMAN: The consent, read that again, 
the consent, what? 

MR. CLAGETT: That puts us back where the 
existing constitutional provision now stands, and the 
Committee discussed this at quite some length and de- 
cided against that, because it injects into the picture 
a degree of too much inflexibility. 

THE CHAIR>IAN: I didn't get it. You are re- 
quiring the vote of the part to be transferred or the 



Court Rrportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable ButlJinf 
Baltiniorir 2, ^firyUnd 



LtMington 9-6760 



4 



235 



1 part where it is to be transferred? 

2 MR. CASE: I will read the existing language: 
3- And wherever a new County shall be proposed to be formed 

out of portions -- 

5 MR. GENTRY: What Article? 

6 MR. CASE: Article 13. -- out of portions 

7 of two or more Counties, the concept of a majority of the 

8 legal voters of such part of eachof said Counties respec- 

9 tively shall be required. 

^^ Now, that may not be worded quite with the 

^^ artistic desire that some of the Members of this Commis- 
sion seem to desire, and I would certainly be willing to 

13 go along with any of the word surgeons who care to doctor 

14 this one up a little bit, but the idea is that you have 

15 to have a majority in both the acquiring and acquired 

16 area before you can have the combination. 

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second? 

18 MR. MARTINEAU: I seconded it. 

19 MRS. BOTHE: Would this mean if the Legis- 
lature should want to redistrict or re-County the lines 



12 



20 



21 of the entire State that each of the Counties would have, 

THE JACK S*I-OMON REPORTING SERVICt 

100 Equilablr BuilJiCf 

CsiffI ntftlttt BallimoK 2, M*r)U<«l UmtHtivx »-6r»0 

J 
I 



236 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



the majority of the voters in the County would have to 
consent or the whole plan would fall? 

MR. CLAGETT: That would be the logical text 
of it. 

MRS. BOTHE: It would be virtually impossible 
if some little County desired to stay the way it v/as? 

MR. CLAGETT: There, in clear focus, is the 
problem of the Committee. 

MR. CASE: I would suggest the State has been 
in existence for a long time and nobody has tried to do 
that yet. 

MR. CLAGETT: And there have been no new 
Counties since 1867. 

MR. DELLA: The reason I raised the point I 
did was because I am kind of hazy on this, because I was 
quite young at the time, but when Baltimore City annexed 
a part of Anne Arundel County, we took in Brooklyn and 
around through Curtis Bay. The people in Anne Arundel 
didn't want this, but it was some kind of arrangement 
worked out with the County Commissioners and people in 
authority which allowed this to happen. Since that time, 



C0urt Rrpcrtert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuilJinf 
Baltimore 2, Mar)-Und 



iMinffan 9iT60 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



237 



Baltimore City has annexed down towards Glen Burnie, but 
other people have been able to block that, and this is 
what I am fearful might happen again. They would start to 
annex those portions which would be mostly beneficial 
to them from a monetary point of view, and it would not be 
the proper thing to do if the people objected to it. 

MR. CASE: Following up what Mr. Delia said 
as a matter of history, I believe the present provision 
in the Constitution was put in to make sure that this 
would never happen again; that is to say, that people 
would be annexed into a larger area without their consent, 
and I am not sure of whether it was Anne Arundel County 
or the annexation of Baltimore County which took everythin 
above North Avenue which was then Boundary Avenue, was 
it not? 

THE CHAIRMAN: That was way, way back. 

DR. BARD: That was in 1888. 

MR. CASE: That annexation was also made with- 
out the consent of the people in Baltimore County. 

MR. HARGROVE: That has been quite a number 
of years ago, but isn't the reverse probably a real 



Court Hvportert 



THE JACK SALOMON RtPORThNG SERVICK 
100 Ilqiiitable Building 
Baltimore 2, MAr>-Und 



L9*in$ien 9-67ttO 



238 



1 possibility now? I would think that there is the pos- 

2 sibility if you look at the tax structures in the urban 
5 areas to try to move sections out into the County. 

4 I mean, for example, the statute says Sixth District of 

5 Baltimore City, which is adjoining Anne Arundel County 

6 where the tax problem is a little lov7, it is possible 

7 you can take a group of people there and vote them into 

8 the City. How you can resolve this, I don't knov7. I 

9 believe the same as Mr. Case, it has been in existence 

10 for a long time, and I doubt if the General Assembly 

11 v;ould ever permit this to happen, but there is the pos- 

12 sibility. 

13 MR. CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman, I might point out 

14 that once again you've got tv70 referendums that are 

15 possible here. You've got your mandatory referendum 

16 which gives protection to the area which is being moved, 

17 and you've got the permissive referendum which, if the 

18 General Assembly acted in disregard of any particular 

19 area, can be brought into play; and it would be up to the 

20 State as a whole. So you've got a degree of protection 

21 here, no matter which way it moves. 



Court Rrporteri 



IHK J\CK SALOMON hF.POKTISC SER\ ICK 
KH) I'.qinUt.lc B;iil.lir.( 
Baltimurr 2, Mar] I. n J 



Letinflon 96760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



239 



THE CHAIRMAN: May I suggest to you that the 
debate on this, that I would hope that you V70uld not resoli/e 
the question V7hich I think is exceedingly difficult on the 
basis that we've gotten along for a long time with the 
present Counties because this is at the very crux of the 
problem that we are faced V7ith now in solving the prob- 
lems of metropolitan areas. There isn't any means now 
available to create the kind of government that might 
cope with it, and I think the whole question is an exceed- 
ingly difficult one, and I don't think it can be re- 
solved on the basis of anything except the present in 
the foreseeable future. 

Mr. Bond? 

MR. BOND: I would just comment that one v;ay 
we can do both perhaps, is to go for these original 
authorities and at the same tj.me not tamper with the 
Counties or the people within the Counties, and V7e may 
be able to move fon^ard using original authorities. 

THE CHAIRM.^N: Any further discussion? 

Mr. Martineau? 

MR. MARTINEAU: I would just like to say that 



Court Rtporter$ 



Tin; J\CK SMOMON RF.POKTINC SER\ ICK 
100 FquiUl.Ir Huil.ling 
Baltimurr 2, M.ryUnd 



LtMin$toi\ 9t't0 



240 



1 
2 
3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



I am in favor of Mr. Case's motion because it seems to 
me that if you can concede that with respect to moving 
a part of a County to another County, the approval of 
the people being transferred is necessary. It seems to 
me the same principle should apply. This is assuming, 
as the Cormnittee has assumed, that you should have this 
approval for the transfer of a part. I certainly think 
the very same principle should apply, perhaps even more 
so, of transferring an entire County from one, either 
making it a part of another County or combining tv70 
Counties and making a nev7 County out of it that there is 
no reason to distinguish between the two, assuming the 
principle of referendum. For that reason, I think it 
should be amended to include what Mr. Case, to include 
the principle embodied in Mr. Case's motion. 

THE CHAIRl-IAN: Any further discussion? 

Mr. Brooks? 

MR. BROOKS: Mr. Chairm.an, I would suggest 
that the principle is and should be quite different from 
that that the amendment is based upon in that v;e are 
dealing here with political subdivisions. The County and 



Court Ht'portert 



THE J\CK SALOMON Rr.PORTINC SERVICK 
1()0 Ilqiiil^ble Rjililinf 
Baltiinorr 2, MiryUnd 



toinflon «'6.'60 



241 



1 other political subdivisions are just that. They are 

2 not entities of their ovm , but they are subdivisions of 

3 the State that has been granted all the other pov;ers of 
4: the Federal Constitution. They are instruments of the 
6 State and are not little autonomous governments here, 

6 there, and yonder about the countryside. As a result, 

7 these should serve the State and its government rather 

8 than any particular people within any one existing County. 

9 This week I had an opportunity to talk to both Dean Ford- 

10 ham and Dr. Bebout ^^ Rutgers University, and one thing 

11 on the proposal that is before you that they both objected 

12 to was the proposition set forth in here permitting a 

13 referendum of the people to be transferred from one 

14 area to another. They both feel and indicated that it 

15 is the general political thought that to- ay, if there is 

16 to be any change of boundaries, if there is to be any 

17 practical approach, it should be from the standpoint of 

18 the State Legislature having total say without referendum 

19 on the changes of boundaries. This is the only way to 

20 make Counties or other political subdivisions in fact the 

21 instrument of the State Government to serve the State 



THE J\CK SALOMON RtPOKTINC SERV ICK 

100 tqiiitaLlf nuil.Iirg 

Courl K.porle,, B.lliinorf 2, MaryUnd Le.ir.flon V-tTkO 



242 



1 rather than to have any kind of referendum vote which 

2 V7ill always nullify the present existing arrangements. 

3 DR. JENKINS: Mr. Chairman, I am very much 
^ concerned by the question brought up by Mr. Hargrove, 

5 and this has not been discussed, and that is who protects 

6 the rest of the County V7hen a particular area may wish 

7 to secede. We may find situations throughout the State 

8 vjhere an affluent part of a subdivision may V7ant to, for 

9 various reasons, to go V7ith another subdivision, thus 

10 impoverishing the balance of the County. I think at 

11 this moment I am in favor of a State referendum on such. 

12 X am not certain of that, but I think I would like that 

13 protection on any of these changes. 

14: THE CHAIRI'IAN: Any further discussion? 

15 DR. BARD: I just want to give an example of 

16 the sort of thing that was just offered. Suppose some 

17 suburban areas of Baltimore City decided that it would 

18 be to their advantage to splinter off and become a part 

19 of Baltimore County. Hov7 about the rest of the City? 

20 Where would it be? The Inner City could then be left 

21 V7ith just the inner core itself after a while, and more 

TllF. J\CK SAI.O.MON RF.rOKTI.NC SERMCE 

100 Equilablr Builling 

Court Krporltfi B.Itimorr 2, MaryUnd Lftinfton 9.t:t>0 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



243 



difficulties would be compounded because the Inner City 
would have no positive voting on this segmentation. 

THE CHAIR>!AN: Any further discussion? 

Mrs. Freedlander? 

MRS. FREEDLANDER: In the light of the dis- 
cussion, although I am a Member of the Committee on 
Political Subdivisions, rather than have it be stricter, 
I would be inclined to not use the second paragraph of 
(b) , but to end 11.01 at the first paragraph of (b) , 
v;hich is on Page 1 of our Report, and which gives to the 
General Assembly, v;hich would be consistent with our 
desire to strengthen the General Assembly and give the 
State the power. The General Assembly may provide for, 
and end our recommendation with the first paragraph of 
(b). 

THE CHAIRl'IAN: Any further discussion? I 
would like to state ray views before we take a vote, becaus 
I think this is, if not the most important, certainly 
one of the most important provisions that this Commission 
will have to concern itself with. 

Involved here is the whole notion of whether 



Court Brportert 



THE J\CK SALOMON RKPORTINC SEKVICK 
100 KqiliUblr B.iilJir.f 
Baltimorr 2, M^ryUnd 



Lixinflon Vi.'nO 



1 

2 
5 

4: 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



244 



you are going to give the Legislature the power to solve 
the problem of urbanization in metropolitan government. 
I don't think that is an exaggeration at all because if 
the Legislature is not to have the power to change 
County lines without having a referendum, not only of 
the people who are being moved, but those in the area 
into wliich they are being moved, it seems to me that it is 
going to be iiTipossible to give the Legislature the pov;er 
to create any kind of district or regional government 
in time to cope with the metropolitan problems we are 
facing today. 

Yet it seems to me that these must be solved. 
Certainly, V7e are in the situation today where you just 
cannot possibly solve problems of transportation and 
zoning and land use and sewers and such in this tremen- 
dous swath of urban community that will extend from the 
Pennsylvania line unless the Legislature has the power 
not to ask the political subdivisions how they want to 
handle it, but to decide how it is going to handle it. 
This gives the Legislature a tremendous amount of power, 
but it seems to me anything less is simply not going 



Courl Brportcrt 



THE JACK SALOMON RKPORTINC SERVICL 
100 tqiiitablc Buil.lin; 
Baltimorr 2, M.rjldiid 



toini'oi 9. 6760 



245 



I 



1 
2 
3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



to accomplish the purpose. I recognize that there are 
political considerations here involved, and that the 
traditions, the sensitiveness of people, their pride in 
their home County and also in many, many respects, their 
pocketbooks, v/hich is perhaps even more important, are 
going to resist the idea that the Legislature can affect 
them without their consent. I personally have gotten 
myself over the hurdle that I would prefer to sec the 
entire second paragraph of (b) eljjninated, but at the 
very least, 1 think the mandatory referendum that we 
billed in must be a very minimum, and I think the pro- 
vision suggested by this motion would simply tie the 
hand of the Legislature. 

Anything further? 

DR. JENKINS: May I ask a question? I think 
I am convinced by your statement that the, just the 
areas concerned should vote on this question. V/ill you 
address yourself to the, as to why the people of the 
State should not vote on this as a check on manipulations 
or possible manipulations within the General Assembly? 

THE CHAIPvI-lAN: You have the right by the 



Court ftrporten 



THE IKCK SAldMflN RFfOKTINC SERVICK 
100 Fqiiilablr nuiljin; 
Ballrmorr 2, M<r)Und 



I,«itin('ofi 9-6T60 



246 



1 permissive referendum for people to speak so that if the 

2 Legislature gets completely out of hand as it may well 

3 do, I mean, we have to face up to the fact that you are 

^ going to have a Legislature that is going to be dominated 

5 perhaps by large urban areas , and they are going to be 

6 human, and they are going to perhaps be inclined to take 
V steps which are for the best interests of their own 

8 areas; but I think the check, the one check you have was th 

9 State wide referendum, that is permitted under the refer" 
10 endura provision. 

H DR. JENKINS: Unless this is passed as an 

12 emergency act . 

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Even then it is subject to the 
14: referendum. The only difference is if it, it goes into 

15 effect, but I don't believe this need concern you. I 

16 realize and I am not suggesting that this is an area 

17 where it is black and white and the decision is easy. I 

18 think this is one of the most crucial decisions of all, 

19 but on balance, itou^itto be, the Legislature subject to 

20 check by the State V7ide referendum. I would hate to 

21 see a situation where the solution of the Baltimore 



1HF. J\CK S\I-fiMC)N RfPORTlNC SERVICK 

100 CqiilaLIc Kuildinf 

Court rttporlrri Baltimore 2. Mar>UnJ LtxiKficn 9-6."6(> 



247 



•'• metropolitan area could be hamstrung by the decisions 

^ and necessarily the selfish decisions of any voters in 

S any particular segment of the Baltimore metropolitan 

^ district. . ' 

5 I hope the problem can be solved on a State 

" wide basis on V7hat is best for the State. I am fully 

^ aware of the jealousies, maybe that is the wrong word, 

° of the incompatibility to a degree between Prince Georges 

^ and Montgomery Counties, and I think it v;ould be most 
unfortunate to have the vital interest of the State in 

^^ the Washington suburban area become the subject of a 

■^^ tussle between those tv;o very substantially populated 

1^ areas, and it seems to me that this kind of provision 

^* does precisely that. We are saying that the State can't 

15 solve the Washington problem area, that the Counties have 

1^ to. This troubles me. I didn't mean to make a speech, 

^'^ but I think this is a tremendously important matter. 

18 Mr. Sayre? 

19 MR. SAYRE: Mr. Chairman, X would like to 
^^ supersede the prior amendment with a substitute motion, 
^1 The General Assembly may provide by lav; for organizing 



10 



HIE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equiubic Uuildin; 
- „ -,..,.( 1 • Ltxinilon 9'67ttO 

Court KrporleiM Blllimorc i, M.ryldnd 



248 



1 nev; Counties, locating and moving County seats and moving 

2 County lines -- the General Assembly may submit to State 

3 wide referendum the proposed change. The referendum 

* may also be submitted as provided by Article, vjhatever 
5 the Article is on the petition. 

THE CMII^IAN: Mr. Sayre , it seems to me that 



6 



12 



7 embraces three or more different thoughts. This, it 

8 seems to me embraces three or four different ideas . 
^ Why, for instance, do you care about the question whether 

^^ the Legislature cares v/here the County seat is? 

^^ MR. SAYRE: I will be happy to strike that out. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Give us the substance of your 

13 substitute motion. 
^^ MR. SAYRE: The General Assembly may provide by 

15 law for organizing new Counties and changT.ng County lines. 

1^ The General Assembly may submit to State wide referendum 

1*7 the proposed change. The referendum may also be sub- 
mitted as provided by Article, whatever the Article is 

19 we have embodied in our draft. 

2^ THE CHAIIU^IAN: The first part of your proposal 

2^ is the first sentence of Paragraph (b) . Is there a second 



18 



Tllb". J\CK SMCiMOS RF.POiaiNC SERVICK. 

100 V<|uital.lr Biiil.liii( 

Court Rrporurt Bllliniort 2, M.r)ljnJ l«.i>i|(»ii 9-t:t0 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



249 



MR. BOND: I v;ill second. 

THE CHAIRRAN: Mr. Scanlan, do you vjant to 
speak to the motion? 

MR. SCANLAN: Me? 

THE CHAIRMAN: This is a motion to substitute 
for the pending motion a proposal made by Mr. Sayre. 

MR. CLAGETT: You said Mr. Scanlan; did you 
mean me? 

THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry; yes, Mr. Glagett. 

MR. SAYRE: I would like to say that the 
sjjiipler V7e have the rar^nner in which the General Assembly 
can change the internal structure of the State, I think 
the better it would be for the welfare of all of the 
State, and if vze allow the judgment of the Legislature 
to determine whether or not it wishes to submit the 
question to referendum, that would be the judgment of 
the Legislature. It does not prevent under our other 
Article the people petitioning through State wide refer- 
endum. 

We should not make this subject to the locality 
involved, and those are the principles involved in this 



Court Rrportett 



THE JKCK SALOMON RFrOKTlNC SERVICK 
100 Equiul.Ir RuM.Ung 
Billimorr 2, Mjr)IdnJ 



Lttin^lBn 9t7t0 



250 



substitute motion. 

^ THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clagett? 

^ MR. CLAGETT: It boils down to a matter of 

philosophy, and here the Coirmittee has tried to recon- 
cile a degree of protection for the area beind immediately 
and directly affected V7here less than all of the 
Counties are involved, but yet leaving to the Legisla 
ture a degree of flexibility, and if I keep on using 
those vTords, I think you v;ill corns to appreciate what 
they really mean -- to meet the problems of urban 
development and the ultiniate necessity of realigning 
local subdivisions when and if that day comes. Therefore, 
since this proposal does not take into consideration the 
compromise that v/as reached by the Committee after 
extended debate, I would have to oppose it and to ask 
that v;e retain V7hat V7e have accomplished here. 

^'^ THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? 

^® DR. JENKINS: May I ask Mr. Clagett the same 

question I have you? There is no protection here for 
the v;ife who is being deserted. 

MR. CLAGETT: There is protection here. If 



4: 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 



20 
21 



THE J\CK SArOMON RF.rORTl.SC SERVICK 

100 Kq.iiublf Buil.ling 

Court R.porlerl Baltimore 2. Maryland Lttinfen 9-6.-60 



251 



1 
2 



4 



5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



you analyze it carefully, let's take the first Section 
where one County is absorbing another County as a whole. 
Now, this is all taking place in the General Assembly, 
and V7here , let us assume now for the example and clarity, 
Mr. Delia's situation, v.-here Baltimore City is absorbing 
Anne Arundel County. The delegates in Anne Arundel 
County have an appeal to the Assembly at large for per- 
missive referendum. The Assembly at large, that is 
number 1, because it is going to require a majority vote 
of that General Assembly. After that bill passes, the 
Anna Arundel delegates can marshal the necessary percent- 
age to put that bill to a general referendum of the State 
at large. Assuming now that the bill passes, the bill 
vzill have to contain a referendum built in protecting 
the area which is being created which will be Baltimore 
County and Anne Arundel County, the new County. Now, 
where less than a new County is being created, you have 
an even greater protection because the built-in referen- 
dum which would then be allov;ed would be that of the 
particular area v;hich v7as being moved. So I think we've 
got here a compromise of protection for the areas and the 



Court fttporter$ 



THE JKCK SALOMON RErORTINC SERVICE 
100 Equitably BiiMJinc 
B»It!mort 2. MjryUnJ 



Ltxingten 9-6.*60 



252 



1 
2 
3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



new -- 

DR. JliNKINS: Excuse me, Hal, you say about 
the portion being moved. But V7hat about that portion 
that is not being moved? 

MR. CLAGETT: Either a part of the State 
as a whole, and if they are that much affected, they 
can exercise their voice in the State wide referendum. 
Again, remember, this is a compromise, and you can really 
find -- well, we came up with four separate possibilities 
and you can get into about twelve. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Bothe? 

MRS. BOTHE: It seems to me there is really 
no way to have a referendum that would be effective, 
that is, a compromise referendum that has a place in the 
second paragraph. I don't think there is any means of 
providing for a referendum that is going to carry out the 
purpose. Either you are going to have the Legislature 
with a free hand subject to the permissive referendum, 
or you are going to have a situation where the County, 
the people involved themselves are going to have to 
determine vjhether they are going to be moved, which means, 



Court Hiportert 



THE IKCK SALOMON RF.rORTINC SERVICt 
100 ETiitnl.lc B.iildirf 
Baltiniorr 2, Mdr)liinJ 



Lttinflon 9-6760 



253 



I think, we will never have any nev7 Counties, and 1 think 
the Comnission is going to have to decide which prin- 

^ ciple is more important rather than fool around V7ith how 

we can have a referendum that is fair, because I know 

^ the Committee has spent hours on this, and apparently 

hasn't come up with one, and I don't really see where a 

proper referendum, built-in referendum, could be for- 

mulated. 
9 



10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



THE CH/.IRMAN: Mr. Haile? 

MR. HAILE: I would like to point out that 
Counties are older than the States or the cities, and 
these waters run deep; and just eighteen years ago there 
was an amendment to the Constitution preventing large 
areas from gobbling up small Counties V7hich passed the 
referendum. I think that V7e should continue that and 
resort to regional governments as V7e are proposing in 
later legislation, and let the old Counties with their 
school systems and judicial circuits stay as they are,. 
That I would like to point out to the Corranission. 

THE CHAIR>LAN: Mr. Gentry? 
MR. GENTRY: Could a State wide realignment 

THE J\CK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 EquilabU Dail.ling 

Court Kiporleri Ballimorr 2, Nfjo'-'n'l Ltzinflofi 9-6r*0 



254 



of the Counties be passed by the Legislature under the 
^ label of a reapportionment, and thereby be exempted from 

3 the referendum? 

^ THE CIIAIRMAN: You mean under this proposal? 

5 MR. GENTRY: Yes, I am asking. 

^ THE CHAIRmN: I wouldn't think so. 

"^ MR. CLAGETT: I don't think you could, under 

® that. 

^ MR. BOND: I would like to ask the Chairman 

^ of the Committee. V7e all know these many problems that 

are coming down as a result of our urbanization. 
Couldn't most of these problems in the Committee's view- 
^^ point, what is the Coimiittee's viewpoint as to using 

^^ regional government, i.ntergovernmental authority to 

15 solve these problems? Do you have any statement of the 

1^ Committee as to whether this couldn't solve the problems 

1' and at the same t5,me retain the old County governments? 

IQ MR. CLAGETT: Yes, that puts us into a new 

1^ and different phase of our consideration. 

MR. BOND: I think it goes to Mr. Sayre's 
motion to this extent, sir. He proposed that we, that 

THE J\CK SALOMON Rf PORT INC SERVICK 
Court K,pc,u„ Baltimor,. 2, M^ryUnd Ic.inj/o-i »-«.-60 



20 
21 



255 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



we adopt this annexation provision subject to a general 
referendum and to my thi.nking, depending on your answer 
here, it could be important as to hov7 to vote on this 



question. 



MR. CLAGETT: There are two factors that are 



involved. One is whether you are going to have a 
regional authority or whether you are going to have a 
regional government. Nov?, they are tv;o internally dif- 
ferent concepts, and they are inconsistent one with the 
other. V7here you provide for a regional government, 
then you prohibit regional authorities, and where you 
have a regional government, you have a representative 
form of government between the County level and the State 
level. Now, the Committee debated that problem four 
separate nights, and we had before you, vjhich you will 
consider before we get through, an alternate approach 
which does provide for a regional government. The Com- 
mittee as a whole has adopted that as an alternative 
rather than, as you will later see after you have con- 
sidered the four corners of the proposal, of the majority 
here. I don't believe that it does represent the answer, 



Court iltportrn 



THE JACK SALOMON RKPORTING SERVICK 

100 Eqiiiublr BuiMing 
Baliimorr 2, M^nl^nd 



Lttirtflon iiTtO 



256 



1 but I do think that the built-in flexibility and inflexi- 

2 bility of the proposal here does not make it impossible 

3 but would make it more possible. 

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Anything further? The question 

5 arises on the motion to substitute for the pending 

6 motion the direction to the Committee to revjrite the 

7 second paragraph of Paragraph (b) of Section 11.01 so 

8 as to in substance authorize or provide that the General 

9 Assembly may provide by law to authorize new Counties 

10 and changing the County lines and may submit such act 

11 to a State wide referendum. The pending motion is to 

12 rewrite the paragraph to provide, in effect, that any 

13 diange in County lines, transfer of an area from one 

14 County to another, cannot be accomplished except with 

15 the consent of the majority of the votes in the area to 

16 be transferred and in the area to which it is to be 

17 transferred. This does not embrace it, as I understand 

18 it, the consent of the area from v«;hich it is being 

19 transferred. Are you ready for the question? 

20 MR. SCANLAN: Is this on Mr. Sayre's motion? 

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sayre's motion to substituta 



CouTi Repertert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Ltxinfr^i «-6"^0 



257 



10 



1 This is not a vote on his motion but mGrely on the ques- 

2 tion of V7hether to substitute. 

3 Ready for the question? All. those in favor of 
^ substituting the motion for the pending motion will 

5 signify by a show of hands. Contrary? The motion is 

^ lost, 6 to 16. The question now arises on the motion by 

7 Mr. Case to rewrite the second paragraph of Paragraph (b) 

8 so as to provide in substance that County lines m.ay be 

9 changed by the Legislature only subject to the approval 
of the majority of the voters in the area being trans- 

"^^ f erred to another County and in the County to which such 

^2 area is being transferred. 

13 MR. SYKES: Point of order. If this motion, 

1^ should it pass, would it or would it not be in order 

15 afterwards, would a motion be in order to delete the 

16 entire second paragraph of Subsection (b) ? 

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I would think it would be 

18 inconsistent with the purpose of it. If you wanted to 

19 delete the paragraph, I would suggest that the procedure 

20 would be to vote against the pending m.otion and then a 

21 motion to delete the paragraph, which v7ould then be 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.ror.Tl.NC SERVICE 

100 Fquiljblr Building 

C»url Rtp^rltTt Blllin.ore 2. Maryland Ltxinilon i-iT- 



258 



1 before you v%^ould certainly be in order. The pending 

2 motion is, in effect, to delete the paragraph and put 

3 something else in place of it. 
^ Dr. Bard? 

5 DR. BARD: Would the maker of the motion be 

6 willing to accept this addition, as well as the consent 
^ of a majority of the voters from which the disjointed 

8 section comes? Now, that may not be legal category, 

9 but it gets at the heart of V7hat troubles me.-,, if by 

10 way of illustration there should be segmentation from the 

H outer rim of Baltimore City and the City finds itself 

12 in great difficulty because the inner portion is alone. 

13 THE CHAIRI-IAN: Mr. Case? 

1^ MR. CASE: No, Mr. Chairman, I V70uldn't accept 

15 that, because it goes to a different point than the 

16 point that my motion seeks to make. It is entirely 

17 different. 

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? 

19 Mr. Sykes? 

MR. SYKES: I would just like to say that this 

motion, if it passes, it seems to me that you can throv? 



20 
21 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.rORTINC SERVICE 

100 EquIuMr DuM.<ing 

Court Ktporut, B.llimort 2. Mar)UnJ l«iin«»on 9-«r(i0 



4: 



6 



259 



away, you are throwing away any opportunity of solving the 
basic problem which is the main reason v/hy we are grapplii 
with a new Constitution today. If Justice Holmes was 
right in saying that the Constitution of the United 
5 States doesn't enact Herbert Spencer's social status, i 

seems to me that it is indisputable that we m.ake a big 
' mistake if we deliberately enact into the Constitution 
° the very kind of parochialism which is strangling our 
government today, and if you take the biggest problem 
that we have and say, Me won't give you the tools to 
solve it, and wa will insure that you can't solve it, 
then we have been tinkering pretty uselessly and spend- 
*^ ing an awful lot of time over refinements in other 
"*-^ matters that would be rendered completely superfluous 
^5 and meaningless. 

1^ THE CHAIRJ-IAN: Mr. Martineau? 

^'^ liR. MARTINEAU: I would like to disagree with 

^° what you said before about voting for this being incon 

^^ sis tent with voting in favor of the deletion of the 

second paragraph? I am in favor of this motion as I state 
originally on the basis that if you are going to have a 



9 
10 
11 
12 



20 
21 



THE J\CK S\rOMON RF.PORTINC SERN iCK 

100 Equitablt Building 

Court Rrpcrurt Billimorc 2. MaohnJ Unintlon 9.6.-60 



260 



1 referendum, it is inconsistent not to extend the refer - 

2 endum to the area under consideration. I think the 

3 matter is completely different. If you are going to talk 
^ about taking av7ay the referendum completely and only 

5 leaving in the first paragraph of (b) -- 
^ MR. SY]G5:S: Mr. Chairman -- 

^ THE CHAIRII/iN: In order to avoid any possible 

® conflict, let's say this. As I understand Mr. Case's 

" motion, it is to amend the second paragraph of Paragraph 

^^ (b) so as to provide that there must be consent by 

^^ referendum of a majority of the voters in the area to 

^^ be transferred from the County as \-7ell as in the majority 

1^ of the voters in the County which the area is being 

^^ transferred. If the motion passes, then I would rule 

15 that this paragraph is still before the Commission in its 

1^ amended form for whatever action the Commission may 

^^ want to take. Is that clear to everybody? 

18 Mr. Bond? 

19 MR. BOND: I V70uld like to comment on this 
2^ motion. I agree with Mr. Sykes. V7e have to have the tools 
^1 to solve the problems which are coming, but no one hasSciid 



THE JACK SALOMON RFPORTINC SERVICE 
100 Eqiiilablt DuilJing 
- -> B I.' 1 «f I 1 Ltxington 9-676(7 

Court Kiporlert Baltimore 2, Mar)!'"'' 



261 



1 
2 
3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



to me that we can't still have the tools through inter- 
regional governments and intergovernmental authorities, 
and still continue the safeguards that the present Con- 
stitution gives to the people. 

MR. CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman, I V7ant it to be 
clear that if the motion fails, consideration of the 
thought of Mr. Sykes that the whole paragraph can be 
deleted v;ill still equally remain open for consideration. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Essentially the paragraph will 
still be before the Commission, either in its present 
or amended form. 

MR. DELLA: I think there is another way to 
reach the solution to the problem which we are trying 
to solve. I am not surebf the mechanics, but I knov7 
New Jersey, for instance, has one County adjoining the 
other with boroughs and everything else interlocking. 
You have people living on one side of the street who 
live in one County, and the others live in another. 
The water, transportation, and everything else is handled 
by one authority. I don't see why something can't be 
worked out here. 



Court Rtportert 



THE JACK SALOMON RFrOKTl.NC SERVICK 
100 Equitable Buil.ling 
Ballimorc 2, M.nUnd 



LtMint'on 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



262 



THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? 

Dr. Burdette? 

DR. BURDETTE: Would you care to say where 
Mr. Case's language goes in and what the v;ords are? 

THE CHAIRI'IAN: He has not proposed any precise 
language, but a principle. The principal embodied in 
this paragraph is that where the lines of a County are 
changed and an area is transferred from one County to 
another, that that can be accomplished only with the 
consent of a majority of the voters residing in the area 
to be transferred. He proposes that in addition, you 
require the consent of the majority of the voters of the 
County to v;hich the area is to be transferred. It is an 
added provision. 

JUDGE ADKINS: I call the question, Mr, Chair- 
man . 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Case? 

MR. CASE: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Com- 
mission, my purpose for offering this motion has been 
served in one sense because I v;anted, I thought we should 
have a full discussion of the very important principle, 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.POUTI.NC SERVICE 

100 Fquitablf lluil.lmg 
Ccurl Krporlert B.ltimorf 2, M^nUnJ Ltxinflon l-tTkO 



263 



1 and as usual, this expectation was fulfilled. I would 

2 like to call your attention to the fact that one of the 

3 reasons I think the motion is a sound one is that it is 
^ consistent with the provisions of V7hat you have in here 

5 with reference to a part of a County v;here a part of a 

6 County is transferred, then the affected part has the 

7 right to vote, v^hereas if the v;hole County is combined 

8 with another v/hole County, the smaller of the tv70 , the 

9 one v;hich is merged into, let us say, the larger, has 
10 no right to vote. This to me is just incongruous, and 
H it just can't be reconciled on any degree of logic. The 

12 motion should carry for that reason. Secondly, I have 

13 had some experience in working with inter-County author- 
14^ ities in this State, and I have heard the question 

15 raised two or three times whether or not authorities 

16 could accomplish the purpose. In terms of specifics, 

17 there is no question about the fact they can, and by 

18 that I mean, for example, the VJashington Suburban 

19 Sanitary Commission has been the agency which has develope 

20 water, sev/er, trash collection facilities in the Washing- 

21 ton metropolitan area. By and large, it has worked quite 



THE J\CK SALOMON RF.PORTING SERVICF 
100 Equitable Building 
>- B n I • «> «v t J LtMinglort 9'6760 

Court nrportrr$ Baltimore 2, Maryland 



264 



1 well. The National Capital Park and Planning Commission 

2 equally is somewhat the same kind of a bi-County 

3 authority which works quite V7ell in the area of planning 
^ and so on. The General Assembly has also provided 

5 and there have been established by law a number of sani- 

6 tary districts v;hich in some cases can, which in all 

7 cases can be bi- or tri-County and there have been 

8 cooperation v;ith the sanitary districts in a bi~County 

9 area. 

10 I think it is clear that Counties can cooperate 

11 one with another without being or having the require- 

12 ment that the smaller County be s^Tqllowed up by a larger 

13 one through merger with no right of the fish that is 

14 being swallowed to vote Yes or No . I feel in keeping 

15 with, and not because this is the way it has always been 

16 done, but because I sometimes fear the tyranny of a 

17 majority, and I think we should provide that the minority 

18 in this area should have a right to voice its opposition. 

19 MR. CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman, I v/ant to point up 

20 before the vote is taken that in the proposal of the 
Committee as you have it in front of you, you see a 



21 



THE J\CK SALOMON RF.rORTI.NC SERVICE 

100 Tqtiliablc Buil.lmg 

Court Rrporltrs Blllimore 2, M.^l^nJ LeMMglon 9-6:60 



265 



1 compromise betv7een the two points of vievj, the degree 

2 of inflexibility suggested by Mr. Case and the degree 

3 of unlimited flexibility suggested by Mr. Sykes, and 

4 here you have a compromise in betv;een the two poirts 

5 of view. Nov7, I do suggest to you, this: The whole 

6 emphasis in our constitutional deliberations hap been 

7 to revitalize and place the Legislature in its proper 

8 sphere of responsibility. If that is true, no big 

9 County is going to be able to sv;allov7 up any small County 

10 without having the approval of that Legislature, and that 

11 Legislature is going to be interested in protecting 

12 the policy of the State as a whole, and not to yield 

13 to the ambitions of a large County to sv/allow up a 

14 small County. For that reason, I would hope that the 

15 motion would fail and since the counter, the opposite 

16 viev7 V7ill later be voted upon, that also would fail, 

17 and the compromise either adopted -- 

18 JUDGE ADKINS: I would like to ask Mr. Clagett 

19 the question of who would protect the small County after 

20 the 1970 census when it is perfectly clear there will be 

21 small Counties in this State who have no voice in the 



Court fttportert 



THE J\CK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Buil.ling 
Baltiniorr 2, Maryland 



Lttintlcn 9.6'tO 



266 



1 
2 



4 



5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



Legislature. They have no voice in the Legislature, not 
right of referendum, v7ho is going to speak for that 
County which is being swallowed up, assuming such a 
condition will exist, and I can quote you instances v;here 
it might. What are they going to do -- rely on the 
general equity of the situation? 

MR. CLAGETT: Assuming the General Assembly 
does mett its responsibility of general policy, the 
answer is Yes, and rightfully rely upon it. 

JUDGE ADKINS: That is an assumption I am 
not prepared to make. 

MR. CASE: I call the questiono 

THE CHAIRM.\N: All in favor, or let me state 
again the question. The question arises on the motion 
to amend the second paragraph of Paragraph (b) by pro- 
viding that when the lines of the County are changed by 
an act of the Legislature, it shall be by referendum 
the consent of the majority of tl:^ voters residing in the 
area transferred to the other County and a majority of the 
voters in the County to which such area is transferred. 
In either event, regardless of how the vote goes on this, 



Court Reporters 



THE JACK SALOMON REPOr.TING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



Leiington 9 6760 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



267 



the Section, either in its present form or as amended, 
will be before the Con:mission, 

MR. CASE: That is not my motion. 

MR. HOFF: It went beyond that. For the 
whole County. 

MR. CASE: Where a nev7 County is formed by 
the combination of two existing Counties, then it require.' 
the vote of a majority of the people in the County takinc 
over, and the County swallowing up. 

THE CIIAIPJ-IAN: That is covered by the first 
sentence . 

MR. CASE: No, it isn't. 

MR. CLAGETT: The difference is, it would 
be the composite -- 

THE CHAIRMAN: V7ait a minute. Let me under- 
stand the motion. I have been stating it for the past 
half hour. You are talking about a change in the lines 
of a County, vjhether or not it results in the creation 
of a whole new County. 

MR. CASE: No, the way the first sentence 
reads now is, where a nev7 County is created, then out of 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICE 

100 Equitablr Building 

Ccurl Rtporler$ Baltimore 2. MarjUnJ t..iii|/o» 9-6:60 



268 



1 
2 



3 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



tv70 existing Counties, then the referendum goes to a 
majority of the total people in both Counties. That 
is V7hat it says nox-?. I say that it should be, a majority 
of the people in each of the Counties involved -- 

MR. SCANTJ^N: Concurrent majorities? 

MR. CASE: That is right. To that extent, 
I have offered a limited amendment to the first sentence. 

THE CllAIRM/iN: I didn't understand your motion 
then. The v;ay I read the first sentence is that if you 
create a nev; County out of part of two existing Counties, 
the referendum required is that of the people within 
the nev; County, that is of the part transferred. It 
does not require the consent of the remaining part of the 
old County as V7ritten. 

MR. CASE: As I read it, it requires a 
majority of the new area to be formed. 

THE CHAIRMAN: That is right. 

MR. CASE: My motion says that it requires the 
concurrent majority of the areas being combined. 

MR. CLAGETT: You are both talking about the 
same thing, but let's reduce it to A , B, and C. 



Couri fttportert 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 tquitatlt HiiilJinc 
Biltimorc 2, MirylanJ 



Lttinfien 9«."60 



5 



269 



MR, SAYRE: You are not talking about that, 
^ are you? 

3 THE CHAIK^I/\N: If we get a third party in 

^ this discussion, I will never get it straight. 

MR. CLAGETT: Think of the problems I have. 
^ THE CHAIRI-IAN: Mr. Case, is your motion directe 

"^ at all to the change in the lines of a County, that is 
^ transferring a part of one County to another County? 
^ MR. CASE: No. 

MR. CLAGETT: He is not talking about that. 

^^ MR. CASE: That is already provided for in 

^^ here. 

1^ THE CHAIRMAN: It is not provided in here. 

^^ It provides only for the vote of the people in the area 

^5 being transferred. 

MR. CASE: That is right, and I buy this. 

1'7 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me suggest that we adjourn 

^° for dinner. 

19 MR. CASE: I will straighten it out. 

2^ (Whereupon the meeting adjourned, to reconvene 

^^ at 7:30 p.m. of the seme day.) 



10 



16 



d 



THE J\CK S\LOMO.N KrPOKTI.NC SERVICE 

100 E>iiiilallc Ruil.Iirg 

Court Krporler, B.Ilimort 2. Maryland Lllinflon l-iTOO 



1 

2 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COMMISSION 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 EVENING SESSION 

October 24, 1966 - 7:30 p.m. 

8 Brown Estate, Port Deposit, Maryland 

9 
10 
11 
12 

13 

14 Appearances as heretofore noted. 

16 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 Reported by: 

N. F. Swetland 
21 



III') 
III I 



THE J\CK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equiublr Buil.linf 

_ , . , ., , , LtMUttlOH 9-6. »0 

C««rl Rtptrlmt Biliimort 2, Mji^linJ 



271 



1 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we come to order, please? 

2 We have devoted several hours to a discussion of one 

3 Section only of the Report of the Committee on Political 
* Subdivisions. Important as is the subject and fundamen- 

5 tal as the questions being discussed are, we can't make 

6 any progress this way. I think perhaps I was in error 

7 in suggesting that we take up each Section, discuss and 

8 debate it as we go along. Therefore, in the absence of 
^ objections, I would like to hold the pending motion 

^0 without action and ask Mr. Clagett to run through fairly 

^"^ quickly a review of the entire Article suggested by them 

^* because I think in the long run this maybe will shorten 

13 the discussion, because it will highlight some of the 

1^ difficult decisions that the Committee has faced. 

15 We will have to discuss the various proposals 

16 as we go along, and I don't mean to suggest merely a 

17 running review of the existing Sections without any ques- 

18 tions , but suggest merely that we have full discussion 

19 but not make any motions concerning the policy questions 

20 embodied in these various Sections until we have been 

21 through the whole Article, and then come back, and then 

THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTl.NC SERVICE 

100 Equildblr Buil.ling 

C»urt Kiptrler, B.Iliniorr 2, ^^J^Un-l Ltmuttlon 9-6:60 



272 



1 we will pick up the motion that is pending before us and 

2 move on from there. Is there any objection to that 

3 procedure? If not, Mr. Clagett, I think you have perhaps 

4 covered sufficiently the second paragraph of Section 

5 11.01 (b) , but I don't think you have covered it suf- 

6 ficiently as desirable perhaps as the first paragraph 

7 of 11.01(b). Could you pick up there, and then run 

8 through the rest of the Article? 

9 MR. CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman, I am going to ad- 

10 here to what you have requested that I do primarily by 

11 reading what we have proposed as the local government 

the 

12 of /Article. Rather than try to diverge too much from the 

13 actual language and give an explanation because I think 

14 actually as we consider the actual language in front of 

15 us, the explanation will be built in rather than accept- 

16 ing my explanation, and then going back to the language. 

17 THE CHAIR2>IAN: Well, I V70uld suggest that you 

18 permit questions with respect to each paragraph, but just 

19 hold back on the motion. 

20 MR. CLAGETT: With respect to Subsection (b) 

21 which I have already read, I want to point out that the 



THE JXCK SALOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICE 
IflO Eiiulublr Buil.ling 
-- -, n t - -^ ktf I ■ Lrxingtoit 9-6.'60 

Courl Arporfrrt Balliniurr 2. Mar) land 



273 



^ General Assembly here, may provide, rather than, shall 

2 provide by law for the creation of Counties and other 

3 civil divisions. 

* Now, omitted here is any reference to cities, 

5 but we move on further and define civil divisions as 

^ including regional governments and intergovernmental 

^ authority. Nov?, this is a consolidation of several Sec- 

® tions , and the recommendation of the Commission at the 

^ first presentation back on September 20, so that by this 

^^ Section the General Assembly is creating Counties and 

civil divisions which will include regional governments 
^^ and intergovernmental authorities but excluding municipal 
15 corporations; and I think in terms of municipal corpora- 
ls tions as defined up in Subsection (a) , m.eaning incor- 

15 porated cities, towns or villages. 

16 The General Assembly shall also provide for 
1''' methods and procedures of creating, incorporating chang- 
IQ ing, merging and dissolving Counties and other civil 

1^ divisions and altering their boundaries. Then we go 

2^ ahead and with respect to the altering of boundaries, 

take care of the situation where a new County is created 



11 



21 



THE JXCK SAFciMON RKroHTlNC !>J:RV1CF 

100 i:<|iiitjKlF B.iil.ling 

Ccur, Krporur, B.Ilin.orr 2. M^r^UnJ l...n«ro« 9.6r60 



1 

2 
3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



27'^^ 



or the lines of a County are changed or all of the 
lines of Counties are dissolved, and a completely re- 
arranged effort is attempted by the General Assembly. 

MR. SCANLAN: Did you mean the second paragraph 
(b) to be the second paragraph or a Subsection of (c) , 
beginning on the top of Page 2? As it stands nov7, it is 
the second paragraph of your -- 

MR. CLAGETT: The second Subsection of Para- 
graph (b) . I don't mean it to be a Subsection of Para- 
graph (c) because there V7e are dealing with the last 
phrase of Subsection (b) as it appears on Page 1, alter- 
ing of boundaries; and then we try to compromise a 
degree of flexibility insofar as changing is concerned 
with a degree of inflexibility to maintain rather than 
have promiscuous change. 

THE CHAIPv>mN: Just a second. Mr. Hoff has 
a question. 

MR. HOFF: Could I inquire about the reasoning 
of the Committee as to the right to foreclose the right 
of the Legislature to leave that entirely up to the 
County v;hich I think would, in effect, prohibit the 



Court Kfporim 



THE J\CK SMOMON RK.roHTl.NC 5EKVICK 
B<Il!nturr 2. MjrjUn.J 



LeMington 9-6Tf>0 



275 



formation of any new municipal corporation. 
^ MR. CLAGETT: That puts squarely in focus 

5 the good purpose that can be served by looking over the 

four corners of our proposed Article here because the 



4 



5 very next Section and Subsection brings the answer, and 



6 



8 

9 

10 

11 

12 



20 
21 



I go on to read Section 11.02, Powers of Counties and 



' Other Civil Divisions. 



Subsection (a). A County may exercise any 
power or perform any function which is not denied to 
it by its charter or by law vjhich in its terms and in its 
effects is applicable to all Counties or to all Counties 
of its class, and which has not been transferred to 
^^ another civil division. 

Now, the reason why I say this is your answer, 
^^ the Committee, after extended debate and I say that in 
^" the light of months rather than just one or two meetings, 
^' debated the fundamental approach of a broad grant of 
^° power to the Counties provided for in the Constitution 

^^ or a grant of pov>7er to the Counties from the General 

Assembly. In other v/ords, constitutional in source or 
legislative or statutory in source, and we finally determincy 



TiJE J\CK SALOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICK 

100 i:<|intat.U nuilding 

Court Reporter, B.Ilimorr 2. Mdr)ldnJ I.».i/l«/o/l 96760 



276 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



upon the approach of a broad grant of power to the 
Counties eraanating from the Constitution. Now, if that 
is going to be our approach consistent with that, 
must be the County and the relationship of it with the 
cities because the cities are v;ithin the geographical 
boundaries of the County. You can't have two separate 
and distinct autonomous areas. You've got to have the 
two V7ith one having some degree of control and direction 
over the other. It has been the decision and is the 
recommendation of the Cormnittee that the County shall 
make provision for the creation of nev; cities rather 
than having a potential built-in conflict betv;een 
the County and the City if the County has a broad grant 
of povjer, and the City has a broad grant of power, one 
from the Constitution and the other from statute. 

MR. SCANLAN: I don't see how you ansv7ered 
Senator Hoff's question. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I think if you will hold the 
rest of the questions until we get to 11.04, it may be 
a little clearer. 

MRS. BOTHE: Can I ask a question? 



Court RrporUra 



THE J\CK SALOMON RF.ronTI.NC SERVICH 
100 K.iuiljblr IluiMing 
Btltiniorr i, M.ir)Ln<l 



texinfoi <).6:t>0 



27- 



1 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. 

2 MRS. BOTHE: With regard to Section (a), 

3 do I understand from the proposed v7ording of Section (a) 
^ of 11.02 that the Committee has adopted the language 

5 that was so much debated from the last Report in which 

6 they define the ability of Counties and other civil 
V divisions to make lav7S . 

8 MR. CLAGETT: Yes, we have, and the reason 

9 why we did drop the attempt to define the restrictions 
10 is that we felt that that was the responsibility of the 
J-J- General Assembly; and when the time comes to withdraw 

12 pov7ers from this broad grant, then the General Assembly 

13 would have to define what powers are to be withdrawn 

14 rather than attempting to v;rite in those restrictions 

15 into the Constitution. 

16 So after debating that, \-7e decided to leave 

17 it out entirely. 

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mindel? 

19 MR. MINDEL: I would like to ask you, how did 

20 you arrive at the terra, civil divisions? Did you 

21 define this later on? 



THE J\CK SALOMON RF.PORTl.NC SERVICF. 

100 t.iiiiul.lr lliiil.lin^ 

Ceiirl Krpcrler, Baltimore 2, M.^IinJ l.»»i>l|««>ii 9-6:t,0 



278 



1 MR. CLAGETT: One of our earlier drafts 

2 provided that the General Assembly shall provide by law 

3 for Counties, cities, or other civil divisions thus 
^ mandating Counties and cities and giving a degree of 

5 flexibility for the future in the phrase, civil divisions 
It doesj by civil division is meant any form of government 

7 or governmental structure that the General Assembly might 

Q come up V7ith to take care of the needs of the future. 

^ We only included at that point tov.nis and villages, and 
then it was broadened by discussion later to include 



6 



10 



^^ regional governments, and then there was somie question 

^^ about whether or not, I think it V7as Mel Sykes who 

13 brought up the question of whether an intergovernmental 

1^ authority was an agency or a civil division. We want it 

15 clearly understood that we understood it to be a civil 

16 division, and that in that phrase, the Legislature has 
1*7 great range of definition and freedom to take care of 
IS problems that may arise in the future. 

19 THE CHAIP^MAN: That is not the answer to 

20 Mr. Mindel's question. Specifically, there is not in 

21 this Article a definition of the term, civil divisions. 

THE J\CK SALOMON RFPORTINC SER\ ICK 

100 I:>|uiuLU lluiMirK 

Ccurt R,po,l,rt Blllimorr 2. M.r)l^nd l«in«(on 9.6>0 



279 



^ MR. CLAGETT: That is true. It is open for 

^ definition. 

3 MR. MINDEL: Is it a governmental unit or not? 

MR. CLAGETT: It is meant to be a local sub- 



4 



S division governmental unit. 



6 
7 



10 
11 
12 



THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller? 

MR. MILLER: You refer to a County's charter. 
" Does any County have a charter? 

^ MR. CLAGETT: Yes, there are four that have 

charters nov7, Baltiinore County, Montgomery County, Anne 
Arundel County and Wicomico County, and a fifth County, 
Baltimore City. Now, I want you to clearly understand 
^^ in answering your question, Mr. Mindel , we do not 
^^ attempt to restrict it to be representative form of 
^5 government. 

1^ THE CHAIRM^^N: By V7hich you mean elected 

1*^ representatives? 

18 MR. CLAGETT: It is broader than that, an 

1^ authority, for example, v;ould not necessarily have elected 
officials. They could be appointed, and vje intend for 
the phrase, civil division, to be susceptible of 



20 
21 



TUt JKCK SALOMON RF.roRTlNC SERVICK 

100 Eiiiiltat.Ir Rji'Minf 

Court Rrpoeltri Blltiniorr i. M.rjUnJ Lt>inflo>, 9.»>0 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
16 
16 
17 
18 

19 

20 

21 



280 



definition as time aid circumstances require. 

MR. MINDEL: You don't think it would be appro 
priate to put in a definition now? 

MR. CLAGETT: I don't think so. Attempting 
to define it now, it would be unduly restrictive. 

MR. BOND: The word, transferred to another 
civil division, transferred by whom, by legislation, law 
or hov7? 

THE CHAIRl'IAN: That if you will hold it, it 
will be clearer later on. 

MR. CLAGETT: Let me explain. After we 
failed to come up v;ith it on the agenda for about four 
times, and some of those metaphors^ Mr. Eney said. Well, 
you have got a great big job yet to be done, and you 
better go ahead and do it, so we disagreed V7ith him 
because we thought we had already done it; and v;e decided 
we would have a meeting at the Maryland Club, and we 
all met there and who should V7alk through the door but 
Mr. Eney. We V7ere there until midnight that night, that 
was Tuesday night, so he said, Well now, have you arranged 
when you are going to meet again, and that happened to 



Court ftrportert 



THL nCK SALOMON RFPORTING SERVICK 
100 l.|uitablr lljillirg 
Baltimore 2, MjrjIjnJ 



Lttiitilen 9-6:60 



281 



be Thursday night, and we were there until 12:30 that 

o 

night, and then this Report that I am reading to you now, 

5 I read while Mr. Case was giving his Report this morning. 

So it has a degree of originality. When we hit that one 
^ phrase there, it involves this business of regional 

governments, et cetera, and when v;e get to that, I dare- 
' say we will be here until tomorrow. It is all very 

o 

° interesting, but somewhere you are going to have to 
^ resolve these things as we did and notvjithstanding the 

good suggestions we got from our worthy Chairman, we had 
a variety in some respects as you will see later. 

Now, let's move on into Subsection (d) , because 
^^ here is another big area of controversy and one where 
■'' we debated long and strenuously. Counties, classes of 
^^ Counties -- based upon population as determined by the 
^^ most recent United States census, may be provided by law 
^' with not more than five classes and not less than three 
Counties in any one class. No more than one classifi- 
cation shall be in effect at any one time, but the 
classifications may be changed at any time. 

Now, here again, the Committee is seeking to 



10 
11 
12 



18 
19 
20 
21 



Tilt J\CK SMtiMON Rf.for.TlNC SERS ICK 

100 K.iuliaMc IljIMir.g 

Court ReporOit B.ltiniurf i. MarjLn.J t».in«ron <>b:M 



6 



282 



^ give to the General Assembly a degree of flexibility. 
^ Again, I repeat, if I keep on using that v>7ord , flexible 
3 and inflexible, it V7ill come to have a meaning as a vjord 
^ of art, because it does have a lot of use. Now, what 
5 we mean by degree of flexibility is that if the Counties 

are going to have a broad grant of pov^er, that is any 
''' and all executive and legislative power not denied to it 
° as defined, the Legislature is still going to have the 
^ responsibility of taking care of conflicts that are 
^^ going to arise between various Counties, and vje want the 
^^ Legislature to be able to step into an area of contro- 

versy and to be able to deal with less than all of the 
13 Counties. 

1^ Now, later we will define what is meant by 

13 public general lav7S , and here you will find that a public 
IS general law is one which will apply to a , to all Counties 
^^ within a class. Now, ultimately, of course, the General 

Assembly if it is given the pov/er of classification, 
could classify into 24 different classes, and v/e are 
right back where we started from with the General Assem- 



12 



18 
19 
20 



^1 bly enacting local legislation. The Committee determined 

THE HCK S\r.O\I0N RF.PORTINC SER\ ICK 

100 IquIl^l.lF Hdil.ling 

Courl Rrpertctt B»lt!n.orr i, M.r)Un<l Lttinflon 9.6760 



I 



1 

2 

5 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



283 



early that it V7as going to accomplish the removal of 
the General Assembly from the field of local legislation. 
Nov;, in accomplishing that, you have still got to keep 
an eye upon the degree of flexibility on the part of the 
General Assembly to take care of areas of conflict. In 
order to be sure that it didn't classify into 24 dif- 
ferent classes, V7e put a restriction upon the number of 
classes, and we debated V7hat that should be, and finally 
deteniiined that it should be not more than five classes, 
and then in order that there be imposed upon the General 
Assembly a degree of serious considerations, we provided 
that there should be not less than three Counties in any 
one class. 

MR. SCANLAN: Hal, may I ask a question? I 
can see why you did that, but you say not less than three 
Counties in any one class. There could come a time 
when you have five or six Counties of roughly the same, 
say smaller population. Why would you have to divide that 
into two classes? I suppose your answer is that -- 

MR. CLAGETT: There shall be not less than 
three Counties in any one class, but there shall be not 



Ccurt Rfporlert 



THE HCK S^ruMON KF.POr.TlNC SER\ !CF 
Baltiitiorcr 2, M.r)laniJ 



Ltiiniloi V-6T(<0 



4 



284 



^ more than five classes. 

2 DR. BARD: This isn't a t5.me to ask questions, 

3 is it? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 

5 DR. BARD: In studying classification as it 

" is practiced in many parts of the country, it is true 

^ that a County that separates itself rather uniquely from 

^ the very next one has the privilege of occupying perhaps 

^ that category alone. I am thinking of Baltimore City 
as an illustration, Baltimore City County. There are 

^^ problems that are unique to Baltimore City, and if the 

^ Legislature, let us say, should pass some enactments that 

^3 would hold true for classifications which included Balti- 

^^ more City just by way of illustration, Baltimore County 

15 and Montgomery or Prince Georges, to take population as 

16 a basis, then Baltimore City is struck with this decision, 
1'' and it may V7ell be that if Baltimore City v/anted to take 
1® the lead in regard to setting up some new ideas whether 

they are related to human relations or whether it be re- 

20 lated to occupational opportunities, it couldn't do so 

21 because there wasn't enactment for the entire class if i- 



10 



19 



THt JVCIC S^I.DMON Rr.POKTlNC SERV'CK 
Court Krptrlrr, B.Ilirnorr 2. M^nlan.l i..i/i»/oi OiT^O 



285 



1 cation which embraced Baltimore County which was second 

2 in population. 

3 MR. CLAGETT: That is quite true, and we 

^ debated whether or not the classification should be upon 

6 population only or upon some other criteria as determined 

6 by the General Assembly to be appropriate. If we had 

7 that second phrase in, there would be a degree, a greater 

8 degree of flexibility than merely limiting it to popu- 

9 lation. But, nevertheless, you've got to keep in mind 
10 here that V7e are basically attempting to accomplish the 
H elimination of the General Assembly from the field of 

12 local legislation, and we don't want the General Assem- 

13 bly stepping in and legislating only for Baltimore City. 
1^ We want Baltimore City, having been given the broad 

15 grant of legislative and executive power here, to be 

16 protected in that grant and not have it arbitrarily 
IV V7ithdrawn. 



18 



20 



DR. BARD: I want to do the same thing you 



19 want to except under (a) this says to all Counties of 



its class, wherever if the General Assembly had passed 



21 some enactments that applied to the Counties in 



THE J\CK SMOMON RrrORTINC SERVJCK 

100 K,|.ilUl.lr II liMirg 
Court Krporleit Baltlriiort 2, MorjUnJ te«i/lJ(o.l »-6rf.O 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



286 



Classification A, let us say, and if Baltimore City 
wanted to, as it is doing right now in particular areas 
of human relations, let's take such enactments as though 
concerned with the law practice, it couldn't do because 
the General Assembly had already arranged for all the 
Counties in that particular category, and therefore 
Baltimore City would have lost its opportunity. 

MR. CLAGETT: Not necessarily. 

MRS. FREEDLANDER: Each of the Counties, each 
of the constitutent units under each of their charters 
could still function. We are talking about here the 
General Assembly cannot legislate in these areas. 
Baltimore City, within its Charter and within its ordi- 
nances, could do all these things. 

DR. BARD: Except in one case. I understand 
you perfectly, Mrs. Freedlander, except in those cases 
where, if you read (a) is applicable to all Counties -- 
or to all Counties of its class. It could not function 
if laws had been passed. 

MRS. FREEDLANDER; The charter takes precedence 
here. It says, not denied to it by its charter, or by 



Court Hrporttrt 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTl.NC SERVICE 
100 Eqi.ilal.lr RuilJing 
Balliniurr 2, M.r)UnJ 



LomiHgton t-6:60 



287 



law, and so in its charter, if it has this kind of pro- 

vision, it could continue to have this provision? 
5 THE CHAIRIJAN: Well, it seems to me there are 

two different concepts you are talking about, and 1 think 
^ Dr. Bard is making a valid point, although I disagree 
" V7ith his conclusion. One is the specific act of the 
' General Assembly which says. Thou shalt not, to a group 

of Counties, exercise a group of pov7ers . If the Legis- 



4 



8 



12 
13 



^ lature passes such a law, then no County, including the 

City of Baltimore can exercise such pov7er and the Com- 
mittee's position is that if it makes it applicable to 
not less than three Counties, that is a sufficient as- 
surance that it is not a riper bill that is designed to 
^^ Qpply to only one County, The second provision is the 

^^ provision in the third paragraph v;hich gives precedence 

1^ to public general laws. You can't take away from the 

^^ Legislature the power to pass legislation generally. 

^® Here, again, this may be by classification, and it could 

^^ be applied to as little as three Counties. Nov/, v/hat 

you are saying is that you may have a situation where the 
General Assembly ought to be able to pass a special lav; 

THE J\CK SMUMON RF.ronTINC SEHVICK 

100 i;<i>iltjl.Ir B.iiMing 

Court K.pcrltr, B.!tim.,rt 2, Mar)Und Ltunfon 9.6.>0 



A: 



8 



288 



^ for Baltimore City only, and the Committee has crossed 

2 this Rubicon by saying to do that means to give the 

3 Legislature the power to pass local legislation, and they 
have said they are going to dissolve that dilemma by 

5 not doing it. 

" DR. BARD: My point really goes back to this 

'^ concept of not less than three Counties in any one class. 

Many States in setting up the classifications recognize 
^ the fact that there may well be one County which is so 
^^ far different from the next County, let us say in line, 

that it is deserving of occupying a classification of 

12 

"*•*' Its own. 

1^ THE CHAIPJ^IAN: The minute you do that, you 

^^ have thrown overboard this entire concept of the Committee 

^5 because this is the basis on which the whole scheme of 

1^ public local legislation is really based. The fact that 

^^ you can have a general lavj and accept 22 Counties -- 

DR. BARD: I don't want 22, but I like the idea 

of classification as a basis and not the idea of complete, 

let us say independence. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I am violating the rule we 



18 
19 
20 
21 



THE J\CK SM.OMON RF.PORTINC SERMCK 

100 >:qu!uLlr ll.iil.ling 

Ceurl K.porlert Baltimore 2, M.r>lanJ t».in«/oi 9.6.'60 



289 



J- laid down. V7e are now debating, the Coiranission, the 

2 issue is clear the Committee did this deliberately. 

MR. DEL LA : In an area such as VJestern Mary- 



10 



3 

^ land, Garrett and Allegheny County v;here they tried to 

5 pass legislation on strip mining, and I don't think they 

^ have any strip mining outside of those two Counties, 

'^ would this exempt the Legislature from passing that be- 

8 cause only two Counties would be involved? 
^ MR. CLAGETT: No, it would not. They can 

pass a law that applies to all the Counties, and the mere 

^^ fact they have strip mining doesn't mean you couldn't 

^^ have strip mining some day down in Calvert and Charles, 

13 and the lav; would apply there to the same degree and 

1^ same effect. 

15 MR. MARTINEAU; Mr. Clagett, is it clear the 

16 classes you are talking about in (c) are the same classes 
1"^ you are talking about in (b) , that is, that if you pass 

IQ a public local law applying to the Counties of a class, 

1^ that that class isn't something you make up from time 

20 to time, but applies to everything with respect to that 
21 



clause? 



TIIK J^CK SALCiMON RFrOiniNC SLRVICK 
100 tniiiuLIf Piil.lir.g 
Court Kiporltn B«IlTMiur<r 2. Mar>l^nJ 



290 



1 MR. CLAGETT: Yes, we are talking about the 

2 same class, and I think the answer is in the last sen- 

3 tence of Subsection (b) V7here we say, No more than one 

4 classification shall be in effect at any time, but the 

5 classification may be changed at any time. 

6 MR. MARTI^■Ex^U: To me it is not clear, that 

7 the class in (c) is the same as the class in (b) , but if 

8 it is , it is fine. 

9 THE CHAIRl^IAN: The answer to your question at 

10 the moment is, it is intended to be. 

11 DR. HICHENER: As I read this, classes are 

12 based upon population according to most recent census. 

13 So, even though the classes are appropriate, they will 

14 have to be adopted after a new Assembly. VJhat you mean 

15 is assignment of Counties to classes, according to the 

16 most recent census. There is a difference. 

17 MR. CLAGETT: One is interchangeable with the 

18 other. If you change the assignment of Counties, then 

19 you would be then changing the classification, and the 

20 old classification would then be dissolved. There can 

21 only be one classification in effect at any one time, and 



THE J\CK SAIOMON RF.rORTlNC SEKVICK 

ino l:qiiilal.lr ll.iil.ling 

Ccuri Rrpone,, B.It;.,mr. 2. M.rjUnJ t«.n,fo, 9«:60 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



291 



the effect of a new classification would be to dissolve 
the oldo 

THE CHAIRMAN: Without getting into language 
at the moment, I call your attention to the distinction 
of using the word, classes, in the first instance and 
classification, in the last, and may still be subject to 
the problem that you mentioned, but that is more a matter 
of language than the intent of the Committee. 

>iR. CLAGETT: It is meant that no one County 
can be in more than one class at any time. Subsection 
(c) defines general laws . 

Public general laws may be enacted vjhich shall, 
in their terms and in their effects, apply without 
exception to all Counties or to all Counties in a class. 
No County shall be exempt from any public general law. 
Now, there V7e define what is meant by a public general 
law giving it two definitions. All Counties or all 
Counties in a class, and then we also specifically make 
clear that no County shall exempt itself or be exempt 
from public general law. 

THE CHAIRiMAN: Dr. Michener? 



Court BrporterB 



TliE J\CK SALOMON RFrOUTlNC ^^ERVICK 
100 Lqiiltablr Biil.Iir.g 
Ballimurr 2. M^rjbiiJ 



Ltiinflen 9tT<tO 



292 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



DR. MICHENER: You mean applicable to all 
Counties or all Counties of its class? 

MR. CLAGETT: That is correct. 

THE CHAIR2-I/VN: In the last sentence. 

MR. CLAGETT: It is in there? 

THE CHAIl^IAN: After the v;ords, public general 
law, at the very end of the Section, you should have, 
applicable to other Counties in its class. 

MRS. FREEDLANDER: We have that in our copy. 

DR. BARD: No, you don't. 

THE CHAIRJ'IAN: But again, let's pick that up. 
That is a change that is a matter of phraseology. 

MR. CLAGETT: No Counties shall be exempt from 
any public general law. 

THE CHAIRl'IAN: Applicable to other Counties in 
its class. 

MR. CLAGETT: If we define general public 
lav7, why doesn't it include that? 

THE CHAIRilAN: Read the sentence again, Hal, 
and you vzill sec it is necessary. No County shall be 
exempt from any public general law. You don't mean that. 



Court Htpottttl 



THE J\CK SALOMON Rf.rORTlNC SER\ ICK 
100 E.|'jii.U>le Iliiil<llrr 



Ltxtnllo-\ V-6:>>0 



293 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 
6 
7 



You mean any general public applicable to Counties in 
its class. 

JUDGE ADKINS; The County might be exempt if 
the law is not applicable to classes. 

THE CHAIRMAN: No, what you mean, if you 
divided the State into five classes, you might have a 
public general law applicable to two classes but not the 

Q 

Other three. 
9 



10 
11 
12 



14 



JUDGE ADKINS: Is there any reason under this 
provision why a County might not elect to exempt itself? 

THE CHAIRMAN: It is intended. Whether the 
language is clear, I don't know. 

^^ JUDGE ADKINS: My question is whether the 

language is clear. 

1^ THE CHAIRMAN: Well again, let's come back 

1^ to it. 

^'^ Mr. Sykes? 

^® MR. SYKES: What is the purpose of the word 

^^ in its effect? I am thinking particularly of Mr. Delia's 

example where you might have a law applicable to strip 
mining passed as a general State wide law, but it only 



20 
21 



THE JACK SALOMON RFPORTINC SERVICE 

100 Eqiii'idblr BuIMin; 

Court B.porler, B.ltimorr 2. Mdol-nJ Lmmuttloi, *t:60 



1 






294 



1 
2 

3 

4 



6 



has effect in tvzo Counties, and if you say that it has 
to apply in its terms and in its effects to all Counties 
or to all Counties of class, and it only applies in its 
effects to tv70 Counties, I wonder if you aren't 
^ creating problems? 

MR. CLAGETT: It would still be in its effects 
"^ MR. SYKES: It would be, but as of the 

° time it passed, it doesn t. I just question V7hether 

the phrase doesn't confuse more than it helps. It is 
enough that the law is applicable to all Counties or 
all Counties in a class. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I think the difficulty comes 
^^ from the language used by the Court of Appeals in so 

many decisions discussing this question of public gen- 
^^ eral laws and public local laws. 

^^ MR. SYKES: You say it is applicable without 

^' exception to all Counties in the State or all Counties in 

a class. I am afraid of the distinction because the only 
^^ reason you could possibly have for saying both of them is 

^ to make a distinction between the two. That causes 

^^ trouble. 

THE J\r:K SALOMON KKror.TINC SFRVICK 

ino li|<iitublc Iluil.lir.g 

Ccurl Reporurt Bt\\\r.u,r, 2. M.r>ljnJ Lttintlon 9.l,:i<0 



9 

10 
11 
12 



14 



18 



295 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



all. 



MR. CIJ^GETT: We made a study of how best to 
define a public general law, and it came up with about 
fifty different ways of choosing to define it and choos- 
ing among the fifty we carae up with this term of, in its 
terms and in its effects. You are dancing on needle 
points . 

MR. SYKES: I point out the problem. That is 

THE CHAIRMAN: V7e will come back to it. 

Mr. Case? 

MR. CASE: I am just wondering what the real 
necessity for the second sentence in (c) is. 

MR. CLAGETT: Well, you are really hitting 
the solar plexus. You might as vjell get an honest reac- 
tion. We are all familiar with the traditional tendency 
on the part of Counties to exempt themselves from a 
public general law which then means that a public general 
law ended up in effect as a public local law. Now, 
this is here so that there can be no question but that 
what we mean to avoid is the process of Counties exempt- 
ing themselves from a public general law so that it 



Court RtportfTt 



THE JACK SALOMON RKrORTINC SERVICF 

ino Liiuitablc Iluil.1il:g 
Baltiiiiorr 2, M.r)IjiiJ 



Ltxintlott 9tTnO 



296 



v/inds up as a public local law applicable to only one 
political subdivision. 
5 MR. SCANLAN; Doesn't the phrase, without 

exception, get it? 



4 



5 MR. CL/'.GETT: Not quite. 



6 



8 



15 



19 

20 



MR. SCANLAN: You v;ant a phrase in there 



^ saying V7e really mean it. 



MR. CLAGETT: Let it be known we really mean 



^ it. Subsection (d) , the General Assembly may authorize 

^^ civil divisions other than Counties and municipal 

corporations to administer single or multi-purpose func- 

12 

tions that transcend local boundaries and grant to 

^^ them the power to impose and collect revenues to borrov; 
^^ money and to collect taxes imposed by the General Assem- 
bly. 

^^ Now, here we are speaking out that the General 

^^ Assembly may take advantage of the device of inter- 

^® governmental authorities within the authorization to 

create civil divisions, and we are spelling it out for 
purposes of clarification and for purposes also of carry- 



Pi 

ing out the Commission s restriction to be imposed upon 

THt J\CK SM.OMON RFirOIlTI.NG SER\ ICt 

100 lipillaMr Iluil.ling 

Court Report.,, BillJmorr 2. MarjbnJ l....n«fi>« V. 6.-60 



297 



1 the taxing pov7er, and here you v/ill notice that V7e 

2 specifically say that they may impose and collect revenues 

3 but only taxes that are imposed by the General Assembly. 
^ I think this ties in V7ith the philosophy and the purport 

5 of the recommendations of the Comjtiittee on Finance. 

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Case? 

V MR. CASE: I would suggest to the Chairman 

8 that our recommendation is not so restrictive and that 

9 indeed, it could be possible and should be allowed that 
10 these civil divisions could collect taxes imposed by 

H the, by other elected bodies than the General Assembly. 

12 For example, one of the best illustrations of your 

13 civil divisions is your Sanitary Division, v/hich can be 

14 created under the now provisions of Article 43 in any 

15 of the Counties. These districts are permitted to deter- 

16 mine whether or not a tax is necessary, and if a tax is 

17 necessary, then the County Commissioners are given the 

18 right to impose that tax. It goes on the tax bill and is 

19 used for their purposes. 

20 So I am suggesting that the use of the words, 

21 General Assembly, in this context should be broadened to 



THE J\CK SXIOMON RF.rom INC ^FKVICK 
100 t.iuilal.lc Il.iil.hr? 
Court Rrporlrtt Blltiinorr 2. Mjr)l-"'J 



298 



1 provide that, any elected representatives of the people, 

2 as v;e talked about earlier today. 

3 MR. CLAGETT: I point this up only for your 
4: consideration, since we are digesting this. By the 

5 broad grant of pov7er in Subsection (a), there is no 

6 restriction upon the County in the exercise of the tax 

7 power. Now, if the County enters into an agreement, as 

8 later provided under intrastate intergovernmental agree- 

9 ments in another Subsection here, with another County, 

10 they could delegate and carry out the very thing that 

11 you are speaking about here. In this Section, Subsec- 

12 tion (d) , we are providing for the General Assembly 

13 creating these intergovernmental -- 

14 MR. CASE: That is not what I am talking about. 

15 MR. CLAGETT: I know what you are talking about 

16 You mean it would be a representative, that the pov7er 

17 to impose and collect taxes would be by a representative 

18 government. 

19 MR. CASE: No. They have the right to collect 

20 taxes imposed by any body of elected representatives 

21 who have the authority to impose taxes in the area that 



lili: J\CK SMOMON RF.r-ORTl.NG SERVICK 
1(10 JiiiiiiaMf ll.iiMIre 

o , ■ , ,. 1 1 LtMinfic 96. (.0 

Court Ktporltri BiItiimirF 2, Mjr)l.nil 



299 



1 that they are collecting them in. This is what I am 

2 talking about, and actually, the way you have it written 

3 here, in accordance with our current practice, V70uld be 
4: really inapplicable because the taxes that these local 

5 civil divisions actually collect are not imposed by the 

6 General Assembly at all. They are imposed by the County 

7 Commissioners. So the way you've got it written, the 

8 way the Committee has it written just wouldn't V70rk . 

9 You are talking about direct taxes, real estate taxes, 

10 by and large. 

11 MR. CLAGETT: That is correct. 

12 MR, CASE: And these are not imposed by the 

13 General Assembly. 

14 MR. CLAGETT: All right, I v;ould suggest that 

15 when v.'e get back to that, we might enlarge it because 

16 what we do intend to iiriply here is that the correct taxes 

17 shall be imposed by a representative legislative group 

18 rather than necessarily restricting it to the General 

19 Assembly. 

20 MR. CASE: But may be collected by the civil 

21 division. 



Court Rtportvn 



TME J\CK SMCAION RF.I't)F> I INC SEKVICK 
100 l.iultihU Huil.lir.^ 
Balllniurc 2. Mjr)LnJ 



Ltiinfiot «-6."ft0 



300 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



MR. CLAGETT: As in the case — well, no, the 
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission determines the 
rate, and the County does the actual collecting. 

MR. CASE: That is the point. The County 
does the actual imposing, and in that case, the collect- 
mg, but income areas, the County does the imposing but 
the civil division does the collecting. 
MR. CLAGETT: True. 

MR. DELLA: Are Hal and Dick talking about 
income taxes as well as revenue taxes, or just revenue 
taxes? 

MR. CLAGETT: We were there talking about 
direct taxes on property. 

MR. DELLA: And not income taxes? 
MR. CLAGETT: Not at that point. 
DR. MICHENER: I would like to ask the converse 
of the question. Can the General Assembly under its 
prohibition against local legislation render a tax against 
the district they are going to collect? 

MR. CIJ\GETT: If it does so generally in terms 
applicable to all Counties. 



Court Rt-portert 



THE IKCK S\I(.MU.N RF.F'OKTI.SC SEKMCf: 
100 I qiiitablf Ii.iil.ling 
Baltjiniirr 2. M<r)Lnil 



tiji/iffoi 9»."f.O 



301 



1 DR. MICHENER: If it is a particular district 

2 and they are trying to solve it on a particular problem, 

3 the General Assembly couldn't do it, because it wouldn't 
* be applicable throughout the State perhaps. 

5 MR. CLAGETT: That may be, except I don't 

6 think there is any restriction on the General Assembly's 

7 plenary power to tax. 

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mindel? 

9 ^ MR. MINDEL: Transcend local boundaries. What 
10 do you mean, local units within a single position? It 
H is not yet clear what you mean by local boundaries. 

12 MR. CLAGETT: Originally, we were dealing 

13 with actually the municipalities as well as the Counties. 

14 Now, as applied here by reason of the fact that there 

15 has been a change in venue since this language was actually 

16 written, it was not so much applied to the municipality 

17 and the County within the same County geographic boun- 

18 daries, it would be County to County, or actually a 

19 municipality if given the authority by the County to 

20 enter into compacts with another municipality or County. 

21 There are five cities within the State which actually are 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equii.bU Buildisf 

Cmrt Htptrltr, Baltimore 2. M.ryUnd UMinfUm ♦-«:60 



■■I 



4 



302 



1 divided by a County boundary. Takoma Park, for example, 

2 which is in Montgomery and in Prince Georges. We hope 

3 that those problems will be able to be resolved by 
agreement and later when we define what we mean by 

5 agreement, it will tend to tie in here. But if they 

6 can't agree, then the General Assembly may come into 
^ the picture and by the use of this device, create an 

9 authority to resolve the conflicts between us. So, it 

^ would be transcending both of municipal boundaries as 

^^ well as County boundaries. 

MR, MINDEL: Suppose you had a metropolitan 
area of Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Anne Arundel 

15 County. The local boundaries would be the local boun- 

1* daries of the City, and each one of the Counties. Is 

15 that what is meant by this? 

1® MR. CLAGETT: That is right. 

^^ MR. MINDEL: And the General Assembly could 

19 authorize that? 

1® MR. CLAGETT: Yes. 

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Case? 

21 MR. CASE: Mr. Chairman, may I make one 

THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

Catiri Ktpflt$ Baltimore 2, Maryland l««uij»»i t-tT60 



11 

12 



6 



303 



1 observation and one statement? 

2 The observat j.on, the statement is that I 

3 haven't had a chance to read all this material because 

* I didn't enjoy the luxury that Kr . Clagett did. In other 

5 words, I haven't been able to read his Report while he 
was giving his Report like he read his Report while I 

7 was giving my Report, but I would guess that there may 

8 or may not be anything in the rest of the Report, Hal, 

9 relating to the borrowing of money; and I should like, 
10 since my somewhat restricted province in this Commission 
H has been relegated to taxes and borrowing and financial 
1^ matters, to observe one thing to you and your Committee, 
13 and that is this : 

1^ That civil divisions in Maryland as of now, 

15 and this has been true ever since, well, for all my time, 

16 have not been given the power to borrow money. They 

17 have only been given, except the Washington Suburban 

18 Sanitary Commission -- they have been given the power to 

19 recommend the borrowing of money and to borrow it upon 

20 the concurrence of the elected representatives of the 

21 people who have also imposed the tax, and the reason for 

THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable BuildLnf 

CmM n^p«rtttt Baltimore 2. M.ryUnd LmtiHfr, ♦-«:60 



304 



1 that is that it has been considered not good governmental 

2 procedure to let one organization incur a lot of debt 

3 and then have another political entity have to go out 
^ and raise the revenue for it. I am wondering whether 

5 or not this concept was given any, or whether this con- 

6 cept depends in part or intends to depart from that 
V statement. 

8 MR. CLAGETT: No, it is contemplated the 

9 General Assembly in the exercise of its withdrawal powers 
^0 will take care of that. situation. 

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't know that that 

12 is quite an answer to the question, Hal. It seems to 

13 me that there is a partly historical answer. As this 
1^ Section was originally drafted by the Committee, you 

15 authorized the General Assembly to authorize the other 

16 authorities to impose and collect revenues to borrow money 

17 and to impose taxes which would have been consistent 

18 with what Dick has been talking about. The Commission at 

19 the last meeting amended that so as to restrict the 

20 power of the authority to impose taxes and to that extent, 

21 made it inconsistent with this principle. 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Buildinf 

Cmirt «c|>«r(«ri Baltimore 2. M«ryl.nd t«.ui#»e«i »«:60 



305 



^ MR. CASE: I think it ought to be consistent, 

^ that is right. 

^ MR. MINDEL: I would like to ask Dick a ques- 

tion, if he understands this will or will not do away 
^ with enabling legislation when it comes to borrowing 

money. Don't you need enabling legislation before the 
' Counties or their agencies can borrow money? 
® • MR. CASE: You. need it now. 

MR. MINDEL: What will happen under this par- 
ticular provision? Will some of the divisions be able 
to borrow without enabling legislation? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Unless the General Assembly 
^^ under Paragraph (a) , by general law applicable to one 
^* or more classes of Counties specifically withdraws the 
^^ power to borrow money or passes a general law applicable 
*^ to classes of Counties spelling out the restrictions on 
^' the borrowing power, then the Committee's concept of 
^° power is that the County would have the power to borrow 
money. 

DR. BURDETTE: Doesn't the language say that 
the General Assembly may authorize these divisions? 



9 
10 
11 
12 



19 
20 
21 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTLNC SERVICE 

100 Equimblr Building 

C»yrt n»pvl*f Baltimore 2, M.ryland ImtinfM »-»r60 



306 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



THE CHAIRMAN: You are talking about Para- 
graph (d)? 

DR. BURDETTE: Yes, I am talking about (d) . 

THE CHAIRl-IAN: (d) is limited to other than 
Counties and municipal corporations. 

DR. BURDETTE: You are talking about Counties. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Bothe? 

MRS. BOTHE: Would this right of the Counties 
to borrow money not be subject to the same restrictions 
of the State under our Code, that the divisions are 
subject to? 

THE CHAIRMAN: No, the State Finance Corrimittee 
specifically left that to the Committee on Political 
Subdivisions, and Section 34 does not apply. 

MR. CASE: That is correct. 

MRS. BOTHE: That is my question. Will the 
Counties then have ability to contract debts for which 
they have no revenue raising powers to meet? 

THE CHAIRJ-IAN: They do have revenue raising 



powers 



MRS. BOTHE: What I mean is if they want to 



Cmmrt Keporttf» 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Buildinf 
Baltimore 2, Maryland 



lannfwi *-4r60 



4 
5 



307 



^ go out and contract a debt, will they be free to do so 
* even though the State Government isn't? 

3 THE CHAIRMAN: As Mr. Clagett pointed out, unde|r 

(a) the County will have full power except as limited 
by the Legislature. There is no constitutional limita- 
® tion on the power to borrow money. 

"^ MRS. BOTHE: So they can do what the State 

® Government cannot do? 
^ THE CHAIRMAN: The difference is, if you didn't 

put it in the Constitution, there would be no limitation 
on the Legislature. As to political subdivisions, you 
do have the limitation. 
^^ MRS. BOTHE: But which you may or may not do? 

^* MR. HAILE: It already has a limitation. 

^5 The Legislature has limited Counties. 
16 THE CHAIRMAN: You are talking about its 

1' present makeup. We are talking about under the Consti- 
tution. 
1® MR. CLAGETT: If it did reenact the same 

^^ applicable law as a general law, it would impose a res- 
trie tion. 



11 
12 



18 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Buildinf 

Caurl HtpvIT, Baltimore 2, Maryland l«««««»i« 9-»TtO 



5 



308 



^ MRS. BOTHE: If the Legislature says the 

* Counties can all go broke -r 
5 MR. BOND: Then let them go broke. 

* MR. CASE: I don't understand Mr. Haile's 
statement. 

^ THE CHAIRMAN: He said that the present law 

' contains a limitation and that the Legislature would 

° probably enact such a law in the future. 
^ MR. CASE: What is the limitation? 

^^ MR. HAILE: It is in the Expressed Pov;ers 

Act, borrowing must be submitted for referendum except 

12 

in the case of bonds. 

^^ MR. CASE: It is in the Baltimore County 

^^ Charter, and is not an Expressed Powers Act. If it is 

15 I have approved about $100 million dollars' worth of 

1^ bonds that are illegal because it is not required in 

1' Montgomery County. 

1® MR. HAILE: You are more expert in this field 

1^ than I. That was just my impression. 

MR. CASE: It is in the Baltimore County 



11 



20 



*1 Charter. That is why you have to vote your bonds and not 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equitable Building 
C»url Ktptlttt Baltimore 2, Maryund 



309 



an Expressed Powers Act. 

2 

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further question? Go ahead, 

^ Mr. Clagett. 

MR. CLAGETT: Section 11.03 deals with the 
^ structure of County governments. Subsection (a) reads, 
A County shall provide for the structure of its govern 
ment by any one of the follox-^ing procedures. Subsection 
1: The General Assembly shall provide for optional plans 
of organization and structure so as to enable the County 
to adopt or abandon an optional form of local government 
by a majority vote of the qualified voters voting thereon. 
Now, here this simply says that the General Assembly 
^^ can come up with model plans and the County can adopt 
^ one of those plans. We anticipate that the General 
^^ Assembly will come up with model charters as it has 
^® in Article 23 . (b) , and will also come up with theCode 
^' County provision which it isworking on now, and which 

will, of course, be up for vote on November 8. So, here 



4 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 



18 



20 



^ we provide this method of having the County adopt a 



form for structure of government to enable it to carry 



21 

out the broad grant of power which we interpret to mean 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTI^C SERVICE 

100 Equiukic Buildinf 

Ccurl Rtpfltrt Baltimore 2. M.nliod i»iii««f»« ttrtO 



310 



1 the grant of Home Rule power. 

2 Secondly, on request of the executive and 

3 legislative authority of any County or on a petition 

4 bearing the signatures of 10 per cent of the qualified 
6 voters provided that in any case 10,000 signatures shall 

6 be sufficient to complete a petition, the officer or 

7 agency responsible for certifying public questions 

8 shall provide at the next general election for the electiotn 

9 of a charter board of five registered voters from that 
10 County. Nominations for members of the charter board 
H may be made not less than 40 days prior to the election 

12 by the executive and legislative authority of the County 

13 or not less than 20 days prior to the election by a 

14 petition bearing the signatures of 5 per cent of the 

15 qualified voters provided that in any case 2000 signatures 

16 shall be sufficient to complete a nominating petition. 
IV At the election, the ballot shall contain names of the 

18 nominees and shall be so arranged as to permit voters to 

19 vote for or against the creation of a charter board. 

20 If the majority of the votes cast on a proposal to create 

21 a charter board is against the proposal, the election 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Building 

CmM Mepfln, Btllimore 2. M»r>Und t..wt»»<i »»:«0 



311 



1 of members of the charter board shall be void. If the 

2 majority is in favor of the creation of a charter board, 

3 then the five nominees receiving the largest number of 
^ votes shall constitute the charter board. Any proposed 

5 charter or charter amendments shall be /published by 

6 the charter board, made available for the qualified 
''' voters and submitted to them at the first general 

8 election more than 30 days after publication. The 

^ executive and legislative authority of the County shall, 

^^ on request of the charter board, appropriate money to 

^^ provide for the reasonable expense of the commission 

^2 and for the publication, distribution and submission of 

13 its proposals. 
1^ A charter or charter amendments shall become 

15 effective if approved by a majority of the votes cast 

16 by qualified voters. A charter may provide for direct 

17 submission of future charter revisions or amendments by 

18 a petition or by resolution of the local executive and 

19 legislative authority. On its adoption, the charter 

20 shall become the law of the County subject ijnly to the 

21 Constitution and public general laws of this State, and 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTING SERVICE 
100 Ei|uilablr Hjil.linf 
Cmmrl Ruptrtttt Baltiniorr 2, Mjr)U"'i 



312 



1 any public local laws inconsistent with its provisions 

2 and any former charter shall thereby be repealed. 

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Any question as to Paragraph 2? 
* MR. CLAGETT: Now, this is, in effect, the 

5 existing language as contained in Article 11 (a). 

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bond? 

7 MR. BOND: I see there is quite a difference 

8 betv/een this and that which is in the Fifth Report. 

^ My question is, is this mandatory Home Rule, or is it 

10 not? 

« 

11 MR. CLAGETT: Mandatory Home Rule, I think, 

12 is best, well, this Report mandates Home Rule. We 

13 have skipped over the adoption process, and we have given 

14 to a charter, if a charter is in existence now, that is 

15 a charter County if it has already a charter, or we have 

16 given to the County Commissioners if no charter is in 

17 effect, the broad powers which we contemplate and think 

18 of as being Home Rule. 

19 Now, in the next Section, we deal with a third 

20 means by which a County can adopt a charter, and there 

21 we say the governing body of any non-chartered County, 

~ THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTl.NC SERVICK 

100 EquiuLlr [Ijil.ting 
Cauri H.ptfitit B.liimure 2, M.oUnd l».««r»« » 6:*0 



313 



^ by a majority vote of its elected members may propose by 

2 resolution that the County become a charter County and 

3 that (a) , all charters be prepared by the means it 

* specifies. Upon the completion of the proposed charter, 

5 it shall be published and made available to the quali- 

® fied voters and submitted to them at the first general 

"^ election after the first 30 days after publication. 
® If adopted, it will be subject to the same 

^ constitutional limitations and privileges as those 

*^ charters first submitted by a charter board. However, 

^^ if at a general election, there shall be submitted to 

^^ the voters of the County a proposed charter drawn by a 

13 charter board, only that charter shall be submitted. 

1^ If the charter board proposed charter is adopted by the 

15 voters, any charter drawn by a means specified by the 

16 County governing body shall not be submitted to the 

1*'' voters and have no further effect. If a charter drawn 

IQ by the charter board is rejected by the voters, and a 

19 charter drawn by the County charter board -- 

20 MR^ SYKES: Mr. Chairman, pardon me. Section 

21 11.02 gives Home Rule in effect by saying that the 



THE JACK SAtOMO.N RF.PORTINC SERVICE 
100 E<iuiublr B.iMJing 
Cxiri Krperirri Battiniorr 2. MarjUnJ ** ■ 



I I 



314 



1 County already has the legislative powers not exercised 

2 by the Legislature. My question is, what happens if 

3 a County doesn't do anything under 11.02? 

* MR, CLAGETT: Then it carries out the broad 

5 Home Rule powers by its existing form of government. 

6 We have debated this carefully, and we are convinced that 

7 a charter is the best structure by which the Home Rule 

8 powers can be exercised. But we have also seen the 

^ experience in the Counties and particularly, for example, 

10 in Prince Georges County where by grant of the General 

H Assembly broad powers have been given and effectively 

12 utilized with the existing form of structure. So we do 

13 not mandate. We meet it as a matter of choice in any 
.14 one of the three ways. A model presented by the General 

15 Assembly, a charter board procedure, or a resolution of 

16 the existing governing body. We do not mandate the 
IV charter. • 

18 MR. SYKES: My point is -- 

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sykes , I think the direct 

20 answer to our question is determined by the Committee 
to be in the first part of the sentence of (a) , A County 

chall provide for ^rrhRcAKrM%B^r9.M.s^\'^ government by 



21 



100 £i|i(ildble DiiilJint 



315 



1 any one of the following ways. 

2 MR. SYKES: Yes, but my question is, what 

3 happens if it doesn't do it one of these three ways? I 

4 mean, it's got power under the other Section. It just 

5 doesn't act. Compel action by any one of these three 

6 ways. There is no mandamus. Does that mean the County 

7 Commissioners who like the idea of exercising power of 

8 all the Home Rule power by themselves without the appoint- 

9 raent of a charter board and without the submission of a 

10 form of exercise of these powers to the electorate can 

11 go ahead and do it? 

12 MR. CLAGETT: That is correct. 

15 MR. SYKES: Well, that is inconsistent. 

14 MR. CLAGETT: Why not? 

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Michener? 

16 DR. MICHENER: My question related to 2, and 

17 it got to 3 before I got a chance. When you say it 

18 will become effective when approved by a majority of the 

19 votes cast by a majority of the voters, you have specified 

20 this will be a general election. Are you speaking of 

21 the voters on this issue or the voters in the election? 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTl.NO SERVICK 

100 ti|uitablf Buil.lirg .... »-*n 

LmMuttton ♦■6.60 
Ccurl ltrp«fler§ Balliniorr 2. M4r>Un.) 



4 



316 



1 They are two different things. 

2 DR. BURDETTE: You brought this up. 

3 MR. CLAGETT: This is the referendum pro- 
tection in the County, and it would be a majority of 

5 the voters voting on the question? 

6 DR. MICHENER: That is not what I said. 

7 MR. CLAGETT: Let me suggest this: Because 

8 we ended up at 12:30 Thursday night, and we rewrote . 
^ this Section, and I didn't have the benefitof getting 

10 the new Section until today, I rewrote the Section on 

H the basis of our understanding, and I prefer what I 

wrote then to what I am reading now. It is basically the 

13 same thing, but it simplifies it and clarifies it. We 

1^ do propose as a Committee to take this very language we 

15 are reading now and simplify it and clarify it. It will 

16 be the voters voting on the question, the majority of 

17 the voters voting on the question. 

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Scanlan? 

19 MR. SCANLAN: The only comment I have is that 

20 this Section seems unduly long, and you have now and es- 

21 pecially Paragraph 2 and 3, a matter that I think would 



12 



THE 1\CK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICK 
100 L.iiiltjblc Buil.linf 
C»url Krporltrg Biliitnorr 2, M^rjUnil ' 



■■ 1 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



317 



be better left to a statute of the General Assembly. I 
am not suggesting at this late hour that I could suggest 
language that would incorporate in another sentence tackec 
onto A-1, all you have specified in 2 and 3, but I do 
think -- 

THE CHAIRMAN: The Staff has prepared such 
a draft. It is in your hands, and we can come to it 
when we consider the language later. Let me say in further 
response to Mr. Sykes that I personally think one of the 
difficulties with the earlier Section is that there is 
nothing that says in so. many words that the existing 
Counties shall be, shall continue until changed by the 
Legislature, but I think if you had such a provision, 
that tied in with 11.03 or rephrasing it would carry out 
the intent of the Committee, that a County may have 
almost any form of government, either the County Com- 
missioner form of government or charter form of govern- 
ment or some other form of government, but whatever form 
of government it has, it must exercise the power of local 
legislation. 

MR. SYKES: I concur, but I was concerned with 



Cvurt Htftmt 



THE i\CK. SALOMCO RF.PORTINC SERVICE 
100 Eiiuildblr RuiMinc 
Baltlmurr 2, M<r>l'"*' 



Lftintlen 9t?li0 



318 



the Committee gap, and if you didn't do one of those 

2 

three things, then you didn't have the power that was 

*' given in the other rule. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I think another assumption by 
the Committee, Mr. Clagett, was, was it not, that under 
1, the Legislature would probably provide model forms 
of charters and would say that if a County does not pro- 
ceed under one of the other, ways, it should automatically 
acquire one of the charters specified by the General 
Assembly. 

MR. CLAGETT:. That is in one of the alternative 
approaches. Actually, the Committee felt that the limi- 
tation of time by which a County shall be required to 
adopt a charter form would not be excluded in our recom- 



4 

6 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 



mended approach. If it took twelve years for the County 

16 

to get around to adopting a charter form of government, 

17 



18 
19 
20 
21 



then it will take the twelve years. There have been 
various proposals, one of which is that if after four 
years a County shall have failed to adopt a charter or a 
form or structure of government to take care of the 
effective use of the Home Rule powers, then a plan provide 



THE J\CK SALOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICE 
100 E.|iiilablr BjM.linf 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



319 



by the General Assembly shall become effective. But 
that is an alternative and is not the recommendation of 
the Committee. 

MR, CASE: Isn't the practical answer to whet 
Mr. Sykes is saying, and I certainly share is apprehension 
that the words that are used here, that Legislature 
will not be authorized or empowered to pass any local 
legislation after this goes into effect. If you can't pas 
any local legislation, the County has to go to one of 
these things pretty fast or if it doesn't, it can't 
do anything. 

THE CHAIRMAN: It could pass local legislation 
by the County Conmissioner form of government. 

MR. CASE; Well then, it is given charter in 
effect, charter type of government. Code type of govern- 
ment which brings me to a second question, if I may ask 
the Chairman; and that is, would you state for us as 
succinctly as you may or wish to, just what the differ- 
ence is between the substance of this draft that you have 
now read and the substance of what we will have after the 
people adopt the constitutional amendment? That is on 



Ctfurl Krp0fl*r$ 



THE J\CK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICt 
100 E.|uiublr B.iil.linf 
Baliimurc 2, M<ol"><l 



l(im('«>i f'«*»0 



320 



1 the ballot authorizing the Code County. 

2 MR. CLAGETT: Assuming on November 8, 11 (f) 

3 Is an additional part of the Constitution, a County, 

4 in order to take advantage of and become a Code County 

5 must follow the procedure there provided, and it must 

6 adopt, it must exercise its option to adopt a Code 

7 County approach. Implementing legislation has already 

8 been drafted, based upon an anticipated adoption of 

9 Article 11 (f) , and substantially it is a reenactment 

10 of Article 23, I mean, it is a substantial reenactment 

11 of Article 23 (b) , which is the one providing for the 

12 County Commissioner form of government. Insofar as 

13 the difference between this and that under this approach, 

14 it will be one of the optional plans that can be adop,ted 

15 by the County along with a form of optional charter plan. 

16 It will be one of several possibilities that the County 

17 can adopt. Now, if the County adopts none, it will have 

18 to continue to exercise the broad grant of power under its 

19 existing County Commissioner form of government without 

20 the benefit of the structure. 

21 MR. CASE: So that the only real difference is 



that under — the present Constitution if it — is omcndod by 

*■ THE J^CK SAI.UMON RF.PUBTINC SERMCK "" 



100 L<|uhubl? Uuil.ling 
Coutl R^poflert B.ll'n.urt 2. Maryland Uitntlen V-iTbO 



4 



321 



1 (f) if the County does nothing it will still have to go to 
the General Assembly and get a local law passed, for 

3 example, if it wants a bond issue, whereas if this 

were the law, then the County Commissioners apparently 

5 inherently would have the power to do this even though 

6 they hadn't adopted a Code or form of government? 
^ MR. CLAGETT: That is correct. 

® THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Delia? 

^ MR. DELLA: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that 

adopting this proposal or something similar to it, that 
it would be wise to have a time period in which the 
Counties could adopt a local Home Rule law, charter govern 
13 ment, and in that period of time which would be limited 
1^ by the Legislature that the Legislature would take care 

15 of their local problems in this time. The reason I make 

16 this statement, there may be and I am not sure this 
1*7 prevails, there may be some Counties that have County 

18 Commissioners that are doing a fairly decent job as 

19 County Commissioner but maybe the people wouldn't want 
them to legislate all the laws for the local County as 



10 
11 
12 



20 



^^ such. 



THE JACK SALOMON REPOKTI.NC SERVICL 

100 E<|iMl.iblr Buil.ling 

C«url n^pofftt Balliniorr 2. M^ryl-nd t.«in«'o» «-6:60 



322 



Now, if this law would go into effect right 

2 

away, the County Commissioners are going to have to take 

over if the people don't enact a law of Home Rule. 

It may create a chaotic condition in that particular Count[y 

because they haven't been able to get themselves together. 

It just seems to me that they should have a time period 

in which they could get themselves together, formulate the 

kind of committees they want, and then elect or get a 

Home Charter Rule government laid out so the people will 

be more or less satisfied with what they do. This way, 

you are putting a gun at their heads. 

MR. CLAGETT: Our study and a special study 

made of the existing forms of government throughout ^he 

State showed that one of its principal attributes was the 

variety to take care of the problems which are peculiar 

to a particular section of the State. We felt that 

this was, and the general comment upon it was such that 
18 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 



19 
20 
21 



we did not want to violate that freedom of choice and 
consequently, we have given great flexibility or great 
range of choice insofar as the County is concerned inso- 
far as whether it adopts a charter or whether it 



THE J\CK SMUMON Rf.PORTINC StKVlCK 
100 I.|.iil.il>lr Puil.lini 
Court Krporleri Baitiiiiorr 2. M.r)I<n<l ■ 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

20 

21 



323 



reorganizes its existing structural form in some other 
way that best suits it. We do not believe that there 
will be such a state of confusion by the direct grant fron 
the Constitution of the Home Rule pov7er that the County 
would not be able to effectively take care of. 

MR. DELLA: Mr. Chairman, I just want to 
make this added statement that I remember when we had the 
merger of the AFL-CIO . We had a two-year period in which 
to merge. Some of the areas were merged almost immediate- 
ly. Others, it took almost a full two years together to 
work out the procedures that would be proper and advan- 
tageous to that particular group. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bond? 

MR. BOND: I would just like to ask the 
Chairman this question. It is true that we haven't 
imposed the same fiscal safeguards on the County govern- 
ment that we have on the State Legislature because they 
can tax, I mean, they can incur debt without being able 
to repay it. Is it contemplated by the Coirmittee that 
there will be something put in the draft to provide for 
this hiatus that Mr. Sykes referred to and also Mr. Case 



Ctfurl Hrpoft€i» 



THE J\CK SALOMON RF.POBTl.NC SERVICE 
100 Equitable BuilHinf 
fialtimurr 2, Maryland 



LmMutgtn 9tTltO 



324 



^ referred to whereas the existing County Commissioners can 

^ just take off on Home Rule with fiscal irresponsibility 

3 if they want to? 

* MR. CLAGETT: Yes, the Committee does contem- 

5 plate that when the General Assembly starts exercising 

^ its power to withdraw that this area will come in for 

''' serious consideration by it . 
8 THE CHAIPl'IAN: Judge Adkins? 

^ JUDGE ADKINS: I would like to ask for clari- 

^^ fication on the meaning of Section, of Subparagraph 1. 

^^ I don't get much out of this. Provided optional plans 

of organization and structure. My first question is, 

^^ does that mean that the Legislature has to provide 

^^ more than one method and secondly, what does the term, 

1^ abandonment of optional form of government, mean, 

^^ specifically related to the term, abandon, and to the 

^"^ term, optional? What is an optional form of local 

^® government? Is it the optional term that is provided for 

^^ in the first sentence of this paragraph? I just don't 

^^ understand this. 
21 HR. CLAGETT: Well, it is contemplated that 



THE J^CK SALCiMON RF.P(JF.TINC SER\ ICK 

100 Kquit.il.lr ll.iil.llrit 

Court Hrporim B.ltlmurr 2. Mirjijn.i Lritifen 9-6760 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

19 

20 

21 



325 



the General Assembly will come up with more than one plan 
of organization and structure. It will come up with 
either 23 (a) which is a model charter already drafted 
by the General Assembly and enacted into statute, and 
possibly will come up with the implementation of Article 
11 (f) in some form. So we contemplate that it will 
come up with at least two separate plans and coming up 
with that, a County which presently has a charter, may 
wish to abandon its present charter and adopt one of 
model plans drafted by the General Assembly; and if it 
wished to do so, it could do so. 

JUDGE ADKINS: Why did the Committee consider 
it necessary or sufficiently important to be constitu- 
tional? Why wouldn't one plan be sufficient? 

MR. CLAGETT: One plan would mandate a charter, 
and we do not contemplate the charter is the only effec- 
tive form of structural government. 

JUDGE ADKINS: I dissent from that. If the 
adoption is self-optional, why do you have to have 
optional alternatives which is what you are suggesting? 

MR. CLAGETT: I think the answer is, there may 



Curl Jl>rp«rl«r< 



THE JACK SALOMON RJ.POFTINC SERVICK 
100 Equitatlr Buil.linf 
BaUimorr 2. M.O'U"'' 



L»Mmti»i it'oO 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



326 



be a lack of sophistication in the lack of a County to 
draft a form of structural reorganization, and we 
dump that responsibility upon the General Assembly. 

THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, the Legislature 
may draft a sample charter. It may also provide a form 
of government, the County Commissioner form or some 
other form. 

JUDGE ADKINS: I mean this to mean they would 
have to drav? up two sample charters. 

THE CHAIRiMAN: Not necessarily. They may 
have the County Commissioner form of government and one 
charter. 

MR. CLAGETT: One charter and one other form 
of government which may be Home Rule. 

MRS. BOTHE: I wonder vjhere this term, optional 
came from, if it was any kind of term of art? 

MR. CLAGETT: It comes right out of the exist- 
ing Article 11 (a); excuse me, 11 (e) , I think it is. 
Yes, 11 (e) . 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Case? 

MR, CASE: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 



Court HrpOflerM 



THE J\CK S\IO.\ION RFPOPTINC SERVICK 
100 KquiuMr HLiil<lin^ 
fialtifnorr 2. Mjr)UliiJ 



LtMiHften 96760 



327 



1 Comraission, if I understand this proposal correctly, and 

2 I suppose perhaps it is not the time to demonstrate a 

3 viewpoint, but this worries me very, very much, because 
^ as I understand it, it departs from our existing method 
5 of charter form of government as we know it in Maryland 

^ as applied to municipalities which is seemingly what this 
"^ is more closely patterned after than anything else. 
® Now, in municipalities, there is a model 
^ charter and also there is a provision that if an incor- 
^^ porated tovm doesn't like the model charter, then it 
^^ can adopt its own charter, but it has to do one of the 
^^ two. Either it has to adopt its own charter and there- 
in fore, and this is voted on by the people, and they know 
1^ what it is; or they adopt the one in the Code, and everybody 

15 can read it. But this proposal I suggest adopts a third 

16 method, and that is as Mr. Sykes has pointed out, you do 
1'^ nothing, in which event the County Commissioners exercise 
18 these tremendously broad powers without any contract 
1^ between them and the people, and to me, this is not, this 

20 is not proper, and I think that, for example, in the area 

21 which I have some slight knowledgeability , I suppose you 



THE J\CK SALOMON RF.PORTl.NC SERVICK 

100 l:<|uilablr Bail.lin^ 

C«i>r( »-fvlnt B«!t!marr 2. M»nl'nJ LtMingien 9»:60 



328 



1 could say in the borrowing field, I think it would 

2 be looked upon with almost, well, a great degree of ask- 

3 ance by the rating agencies because the one thing that 

4 the rating agencies ask you when you go to talk to them 

5 about the County's fiscal position is how many bonds are 

6 authorized, and you either say there are so many bonds 

7 authorized, or there are none. Well, if there are none, 

8 how do they become authorized? Well, the General 

9 Assembly has to pass a law or the County Council, which 

10 is a legislative body, and a charter County has to pass 

11 a law, but at least a law has to be passed. But if you 

12 went to them and said the County Commissioners, by reso- 

13 lution, can just issue bonds, I am very much afraid, 

14 Ladies and Gentlemen, that the credit of those Counties 

15 which didn't adopt a charter would be very seriously im- 

16 paired. 

17 I think the Commission ought to take a real 

18 strong look at this particular provision. 

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions about 

20 this Section? If not, can we move to Section 11.04? 

21 MR. CLAGETT: City Governments. The Counties 



THE J\CK S\IOMON RF.rOF.TlNG SERVICK 

100 E.|iiiijH<- Buil.lirg . .. „ 

Ccurl Nrperlrri B.ltniorr 2. MirjbnJ 



10 

11 

12 



14 



20 
21 



If 

MR. SCANLAN: Does this mean that/the County 



329 



may provide by public local law for the creation of 

any new municipal corporations within its boundaries 
3 and for methods and procedures of incorporating, changing, 

merging and dissolving them and altering their boundaries. 
^ No existing municipal corporation shall be dissolved 

without its consent or the consent of the General Assem- 

n 

' bly by law. 

8 

9 

didn't provide for public local law, it would be forever- 
more impossible for a new city charter -- 

MR. CLAGETT: Exactly. Let me point out that 
the Committee has gone through a real metamorphosis of 
^^ thinking on this one. We started out at the opposite 
end of the pole preserving exactly the existing setup, 
^^ and then we moved around, and then we finally ended up 
^^ right where you see here. That is a considered evolution 
^' of anything in conformity with what we have observed 
^° taking place insofar as the transferral by the General 
^^ Assembly of many of its powers over the municipalities 

to the County particularly as now by an amendment passed 
back in 1935. No new municipality can be created without 



THE JKCK SALOMON RF.PORTING 5ERVICK 
100 Equitably Buil.lin« 
Court Reporterl Btlt'morr 2. Mirybitil * 



•■i 



10 



330 



1 the approval and consent of the County, On dissolution 

2 the County must absorb all the assets and obligations of 
5 a municipality. In the field of abnegation, the General 
^ Assembly has moved it into the local arena. So V7e have 

5 observed here that the General Assembly has been divest- 

6 ing itself of much of its power and transferring that 

V power to the County. That being the process, then it is 

8 illogical conclusion to give to the County the deter- 

9 mination of whether or not there shall be any new 
municipalities or what effect the function of the County 

H and the municipality shall be. 

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Judge Adkins? 

13 JUDGE ADKINS: Is the last sentence inconsis- 
14- tent with the prohibition against local legislation, 

15 and if so, which controls? 

16 MR. CLAGETT: Remember, this must be initiated 

17 by the County, and the County, if it fails to get the 

18 consent of the municipal corporation, may then appeal to 

19 the General Assembly; and on the appeal of the County, 

20 the General Assembly can then act. 

21 THE CHAIRi-IAN: Mr. Clagett, let me interrupt 



THE J\CK SM.nMON RFPORTINC SERVICK 

100 E<|ultahlr KinMintr 

Court Rrperl^r. Blltimor, 2, Marjhn.J t..i««»oi » 6:f.O 



331 



1 this because this highlights a difference in recollection 

2 between Mr. Brooks and me as to the decision of the Com- 

3 mittee on Thursday evening, and I think that there is 
* some inconsistency in the language of the reporting of 
6 this Section. Your first sentence says that the County 
6 may provide that public local law for creation, and so 

'f forth, and that methods and procedures of incorporating, 

8 changing, merging, and dissolving them -- which I take 

9 it, as written would refer grammatically to new municipal 
10 corporations. 

H It was my understanding that the Committee's 

12 final decision was that the County would have full power 

13 to alter the powers of existing and new municipal cor- 

14 porations and that the only thing that required the con- 

15 sent of the municipal corporation was its dissolution. 

16 Mr. Brooks' recollection is that you didn't 

17 go that far and that the withdrawal of powers, as well 

18 as dissolution of the existing municipal corporations 

19 required its consent. Now, one thought is implicit in 

20 one sentence, and the other thought in the other, and 
therefore, we are not clear as to what the Comnittee inten 

ded . 



21 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTINC SER\ !Cfc 

100 Eiiuiubic Rjil.Ung 

Cturt Rtparitf Baltimore 2. M*nl«nJ t.iuiro-. » 6.-60 



332 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



MR. CLAGETT: The Committee intended that 
insofar as any change in the existing charters of municipj 
corporations, it should be by and with the consent of 
the County and not merely its dissolution. 

THE CllAIRMAN: Then Judge Adklns' point is 
well taken, it seems to me. This could be a conflict 
with the power of local legislation of Counties. 

MRS. FREED7J\NDER: We raised this very 
question Thursday night. . 

THE CHAIRMAN: I know it was discussed, and 
the difficulty is we didn't remember exactly. 

MRS. FREEDLANDER: And we said in this par- 
ticular instance although there were som.e of us who dis- 
agreed, there would be local legislation. We recognized 
the inconsistency. V7e saw no way out and recognized in 
this particular instance there would be cases at the 
invitation of the Counties, there V70uld be this dissolu- 
t ion . 

MR. BROOKS: That it would be approval rather 
than legislation itself, but it would be only in the 
rature of withdrawal of existing pov^er. 



Court Reponen 



THE J\CK S\LOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICK 
100 ><|iiit.blr FluiMirg 
Baltiniorr 2. .Xt.ir)ldnJ 



Lt'tnllen 9 6Tt>0 



333 



1 
2 

3 

4 



6 
7 
8 



MRS. FREEDLANDER: And we said by joint resolu- 
tion because we did not want to start this local law 
again, so after hours of talking, we said we agreed that 
this would be by joint resolution. We ought to change, 
5 by law, because I think your minutes would show, John. 

MR. MILLER: How would an existing corporation 
change its charter if it wanted to? An existing 
municipal corporation. How could it change its charter 
^ if it wanted to? 
^^ MRS. FREEDLANDER: Only with the consent of the 

County, 

MR. MILLER: It just says, it refers to new 
^^ corporations. 

^* THE CHAIRMAN: I think you've got an irrecon- 

*^ cilible conflict between the two sentences, but I think 
*^ we need to get the Committee's recommendation clear, 
l" and then we can work on the language. 

^® MR. BROOKS: If I may interrupt. Alternative 

1^ to the Staff document is the elaboration of what I under- 
stood to be the intent of the Committee, the (a) Section 
*^ is precisely what you already have, and the (b) Section 



11 
12 



20 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Eqiiiiiblc Buil.lmc 

Ccvrl Rr|w(«rt Biltimorr 2. MirjUnJ t«.ui«f»i V«:«0 



10 



33A 



"*- is the elaboration. 

2 MR. CLAGETT: That would be under alternative 

3 2,. 

^ MR. BROOKS: Alternative 2, 

5 MR. CLAGETT: As it appears on Page 4 of the 

^ Staff study. 

''' MR. CLAGETT: Now, I think you get the idea 

® of what has happened here rather than belaboring the 

^ detail, because we can come back and study it in further 
detail, but the purpose at this point is to give you 

an overall concept of the recommendation of the Committee, 

12 

and then we can come back and approach some of the indi- 

^3 vidual segments of it . 

1^ THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Hoff? 

15 l^R^ HOFF: Does the Com.raittee realiz^e that the 

1^ practical effect of this would be to prohibit all new 

1'^ municipalities and to prohibit all annexations by 

1^ municipalities? 

19 MR. CLAGETT: Yes, it does, and we think that i 

^^ desirable. I might point out that we have seen the 

^1 grov7th of County responsibility and its entry into the 



THE J\CK S\L(jMO\ RF.POBTINC SERVICK 
100 F<|iiit^hlc HiiiMing 
Caurl Ftpottett Btltiniurr 2. Marjl^nd 



4 



335 



field of rendering municipal services and functions. 
You see the lines between municipal corporations and 
5 these unincorporated tovms blurring the differences be- 
tween the two, and where the Counties have a respon- 
^ sibility of these large unincorporated grounds, and you 
® see the Counties solving those problems, there should be 
* no greater restriction insofar as the existing municipal 
° corporations are concerned. The municipalities as such 
^ will be nonconforming uses, and that is what is contem- 
^ plated insofar as the Committee approach is concerned. 

MR. HOFF: May I ask one further question? 
I presume the Committee also realizes that by prohibiting 
^^ annexation you are, in effect, forcing some of these 
^^ municipalities to go out of business. I gather that is 
15 what you have in mind. 
J-D MR. CLAGETT: That is intended, but let me 

1'^ point up the fact of the matter, and that is that 
1® you've got, you had 152 municipalities back in 1960. 
1^ You have 149 now, because three have gone out of existence 
Now, of that 149 remaining, 115 have a population of less 
than 2500 persons. So the number that you are speaking 



11 



20 
21 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICE 
100 Lquiubl; BuilJinz 
^ _ B < ' < •• I 1 l««Mi*»oil 9-6.*60 

Ccurl Kep«rler$ Bil'iniorf 2. iltr-jl^niS 



336 



1 about that are substantial are very small, and some of 

2 those municipalities in that 115 have no more than five 

3 or six persons in them. So the dissolution is contem- 

4 plated, and it is thought to be a good one. I point out 

5 a further fact, and that is in Baltimore County and 

6 Howard County, you have no municipalities whatsoever, 

7 and they get along reasonably well in comparison with 

8 Prince Georges and other big Counties. 

9 MR. CASE: May I ask what in this particular 

10 point on four provisions would prevent an existing new 

11 municipality from annexing? 

12 MR. CLAGETT: Nothing except the concept of 

13 the County. 

14 MR. CASE: It doesn't say anything about that. 

15 Doesn't this sentence deal with new municipalities? 

16 MR. SCANLAN: Changing its boundaries. 

17 THE CHAIRMAN: You are touching on the con- 

18 flict that I mentioned before. There is a conflict in 

19 language, but the Committee has made it clear that 

20 although there is a conflict in the language, they intend 

21 the second sentence to be broader and to cover with 



Court Keporlert 



THE J\CK SALOMON RF.COBTING SER\ ICK 
100 E<|iat«hl' Hjil.lin* 
Bil'iniurr 2. Mdn'"""! 



toinffan 9-6TliO 



337 



1 respect to existing municipalities many of the things 

2 and perhaps all of the things covered in the first sen 

3 tence with respect to new municipalities. 
* MR. CLAGETT: That is correct. 

5 MR. CASE: We will not be asked to vote up 

6 or do\TO in this form, will we? 
f THE CHAIRMAN: No. 

8 MR. CLAGETT: We will introduce the alternative 

9 as possible substitute language. 

^^ THE CHAIRMAN: Let me add a comment to Senator 

J-^ Hoff's question. The Committee has pointed out, Senator 

^2 Hoff , that by statute in Maryland no new municipality 

13 can now be created without the consent of the County in 

14 which it is located. Any further question about 11.04? 

15 MR. CASE: I would say one thing, and it has 

16 been my experience that the right of annexation or the 

17 privilege of annexation is a very, very important thing 

18 to existing municipalities in this State, and I can 

19 cite to you two very, very rapidly growing municipalities 

20 which are very progressive and are bringing a lot to 

21 their respective Counties, and they are Rockville and 



THE J\CK SALOMON RF.PORTI.NC SERVICE 

100 Eq'iilablr BiiiMmg 

Cmurt Krptrlert Blltiniorr 2. M^n'-inJ Ltiinflot 9 tTkO 



m'J 



338 



^ Bowie — 

2 MR. CLAGETT: Which annexed V7hich? 

3 MR. CASE: Bowie and Bel Air. I wrote the 
^ charter, but I would be sorely perplexed if this went 

5 through. 

6 MR. CLAGETT: We recognize this is not with- 
^ out its difficulties. Section 11.05, Intrastate Agree- 

8 ment. I would like to have inserted intrastate, inter- 

9 governmental agreement. Any County, other civil 
^^ divisions, or municipal corporation may, except to the 
^^ extent prohibited by public general law, agree with the 
*2 State or with any other County civil division or municipal 
13 corporation for the joint administration of any of their 
1^ functions and powers and the sharing of costs thereof. 

15 . THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions? 

16 Mr, Case? 

IV MR. CASE: To me this is again another serious 

18 one. Does this mean a County could agree to bargain 

19 with its tax power. It is certainly the function of the 

20 County. 

21 DR. BARD: Except to the extent prohibited 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.POnTINC SERVICK 
100 Fqiiliablf BiiiMmg 
^ B „..,.. 1 1 Lti'tHtion 9-6. I>0 

Court Krpcrlrri Balliinurr i, Mjr>Umi 



339^ 

1 by public general law. 

2 MR. CLAGETT: Which will be the brake -- 

3 MR. CASE: Suppose it is not within the 

4 general law? 

5 MR. CLAGETT: Can you make your question a 
5 little more specific? 

7 MR. CASE: Can they? 

8 MR. CLAGETT: Bargain away in what way? 

9 MR. CASE: Well, could a County say to a 

10 municipality that within the confines of the municipality 

11 you can levy and collect County taxes? 

12 MR. CLAGETT: Where would that differ from 

13 what it is doing now? It is concurrent power between 

14 the two now. 

15 MR. CASE: The County collects the City taxes 
Ig now. It is the other way. 

17 MR. CLAGETT: Isn't it concurring? They both 

IQ collect them at present. 

19 MR. CASE: But the City does not collect 

20 County taxes. ^ 

21 MR. CLAGETT: The Court of Appeals has 



THE JACK SALOMON RF.POFTINC SERVICE 

100 EqullaKIr BuiMing 

Cmurl Kmparltf B«Ilimor» 2. MjnbnJ LtMimftoi 9-t:b0 



340 



1 interpreted that as being a concurring power. 

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Freedlander? 

3 MRS. FREEDLANDER: In ansx^er to Mr. Case, the 

4 answer is Yes, if we are planning on any kind of metro- 

5 politan government or district, call it what you v;ill, 

6 there is going to be some sharing of their taxation 

7 pov;ers in order to perform a joint function. That is 

8 the meaning of this as I understand it. 

9 MR. CASE: I just asked. 

10 THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is contemplated by 

11 the Committee from the discussions I have heard that 

12 what they are talking about is joint administration of 

13 functions and powers. If, for instance, under the 

14 public general law two Counties were authorized to im- 

15 pose an income tax, they could provide one method or 

16 means by which the tax would be administered jointly. 

17 MR. CASE: Isn't it perfectly obvious that 

18 if, as the Commission indicates, and this is, and I think 

19 it is right, that the Counties are the creatures of the 

20 General Assembly that you don't need anything in the 

21 Constitution to give the Legislature the power to permit 



THK J\CK SMOMON RF.PORTI.NC SERVICF. 

100 Fiiullat.lr Diiil.ling 

C»url Ktponttt Ballin.nrc 2. MarjlanJ 1».i>i<k>h OtTbO 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



341 



its own creatures to bargain with one another. Couldn't 
the Legislature, by general law, do exactly this? 

THE CHAIRMAN: This goes one step further. 

MR. CASE: Why do you have to put anything like 
this in the Constitution? 



THE CHAIRMAN: This authorizes the Counties 



to do it . 



MR. CLAGETT: And it is a useful tool. It 
would be very useful in many situations. 

MR. CASE: I just wondered. 

THE CHAIRMAN; Mr. Hargrove mentioned police 
powers. Baltimore City, Anne Arundel and Baltimore County 
may have one police force right now. 

MR. HARGROVE: State Police right now. 

MR. SYKES: Could I ask a question about the 
whole draft? I think I know a little more about the 
problems involved in that draft. We also have before us 
a Staff memo dated October 14, 1966, Staff memo dated 
October 24, 1966, and a proposed draft by, I understand 
it was drawn by the Chairman. It seems to me since we 
are engaged in giving ourselves the necessary overall 



C0*irt Htpotttrt 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 liquilablr BjilJirg 
Baltimorr 2, ManUnd 



taMuttton ttTiO 



342 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



perspective that we can't really decide on the questions 
raised by the Committee draft unless v;e knov; something 
about these other drafts except that if it is meant 
that these other drafts will be ignored by us. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I am going to make this sug- 
gestion to you if it meets with the approval of all of 
you, in the 20 minutes that we have left for this Section 
I would like to give Mrs. Kostritsky an opportunity to 
address the Commission v^ith respect to part of the prob- 
lems in this area. As all of you know, she is not only 
a reporter for this Commission and has been working very 
closely with this particular Committee, but in addition 
to that, she has been employed full time for more than 
a year by the City of Baltimore as part of a task force 
specifically working on the Constitution. I would also 
like to give Mr. Brooks a few minutes to outline in gen- 
eral form the Staff memo and to give Mr. Sayre a few 
minutes to outline his views. I think if you have those 
three and they will all have to be limited, because if 
we cut them up into 20 minutes, it will mean six or seven 
minutes apiece, you will get a pretty comprehensive pic- 



Court Ftportert 



THE J\CK SMUMON RF.POnTlNC 5ERVICK 
100 K.iiiilaLlr Ruil.ling 
Baltimurr 2. MaryUn.l 



LtMinflom 9-6T60 



343 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 



ture. 

Mrs. Kostritsky? 

I am going to assume the prerogative of call- 
ing time on each of the three, because we said V7e were 
going to adjourn at 9:30, and if we stretch it beyond, 
we waste time. 

MRS. KOSTRITSKY: I hope we can carry this as 
a dialogue. I can tell you the areas of concern to the 
City, since this is something that I am sure is of interes 
to you at the moment. You earlier addressed yourself to 
that matter of boundary changes, and there was an indica- 
tion that there was a concern with the necessity for a 
referendum, and this is the kind of compromise -- I think 
the City itself initially took that protection on its 
^^ view which is exhibited by the need for a referendum by 

^^ saying. Well, if you are going to take part of any area 

* away and start to carve up Counties, you are going to 

1 ft 

need a three-way referendum. Not only in that area that 

19 f 

is shifting are you going to need it, you can t give 

this area the absolute veto powei; you are going to need 
that referendum if that area is going to acquire the 



20 
21 



THE MCK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Eri.iildbU Buil.lin« 

C»urt Rtporltri Blllimorr 2. M.nl»nJ Lfiit'on ttTtO 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



344 



County. How is it going to upset the structure of that 
County? But realistically, at the same time you are 
going to have to consider the interest of that area 
losing territory. We are all aware that changing of 
boundaries is no longer that of moving undeveloped land. 
It is a very realistic problem of the total financial 
and fiscal resources of any area that is moving at that 
tijne. This would indicate that the power really should 
remain in the General Assembly, because otherwise you 
are going to freeze your boundaries. You V7ill say. If 
we are going to isferendum, we are going to freeze our 
existing boundaries and leave them v^here they are and 
accept entities of Counties as they are. 

And if the General Assembly cannot, at that 
point, effect any change necessary, this truly leads you 
into the next stage of this thing, which is given that 
set of circumstances, what tool can be given to the 
Legislature to form those meaningful areas for government, 
accepting the fact that at this moment boundary lines 
are not meaningful in those rapidly developing areas 
where development does not respect the boundary line. 



Court Htporlttt 



THE J^CK SMUMON KF.PORTINC SERVICE 
100 E.|uit^^•l<• Biiil.lir.g 

Btltrniorr 2. MjrjljnJ 



triinfon 9tT60 



2 



11 
12 



18 



345 



It has jumped over this. The tool in that case is the 



creation of some other governmental unit, federation of 



5 local units, requirement by the General Assembly that 

powers that have been given to these Counties are required 

^ to be exercised jointly. 

Now, when we faced up to the fact that many, 
many things now are transcending local boundary lines, 



° we considered the, whether this broad grant of power would 

Q 

for the future be that meaningful power if you left open 
10 



that door whereby any and all powers could be withdrawn 
from local units and vested within any undefind authority 
agency, civil division, no matter what its name, and 
^^ whether we were going to have a three-tier level of 
^ government or whether we were going to have a ten-tier 
^^ level of government. There was a great area of uncer- 
^® tainty about this. At this point, if you consider the 
^"^ j necessity to realistically accept the fact that there are 

several interests in the State, there is that which is 
^^ the indigenous one of both Counties which is a completely 

^ recognizable thing; and there is also a problem demon- 

21 

strated by the corridor development of this State. We 



THE J\CK SALOMON RF.POBTINC SERViCK 

100 Eqiiliablf BiiiMing 

Court K^pOfUr, Btltimorr 2. M-r^Lnd l.«.i««ion »-6.-o0 



346 



cannot ignore the fact that we are developing a corridor 
of heavy and intense and dense development from Washing- 
3 ton to the Pennsylvania line, and this is more and more 
^ constituting an area of community interest, and that some 

5 how the problems within this corridor must be realistical- 
" ly resolved at this point. I don't know whether you are 
' going to do this by simply giving the General Assembly 
® the power to change any and all boundaries and to give 
full recognition to this kind of development or whether 
^^ you are going to structure something that is going to 

leave close to the local unit of government those pov7ers 

12 

which directly affect them, but accept the fact that 

^^ some of those powers cannot realistically be exercised 

^^ by one unit alone. At that moment, I think our desire 
^^ has been to establish some means whereby that the simple 
^^ fact that a matter does transcend local boundaries is not 
^' sufficient. reason for State intervention and the exercise 
of that power, but that indeed, there must be a way that 



9 



18 



^^ there could be an area-wide exercise of those powers 



20 



which are area-wide in their nature, that there is a 



community of interest that must be recognized in this, 



THE MCK SALOMON RF.PORTINC SERVICE 

100 t<|uitablr Bail.lirg 
Court R,porl€i, B»li;n.orr 2. MdrjUnJ t».ii«f«>i 96:00 



347 



1 and that although storm drainage may go from one County 

2 to another, that in fact, this is not a matter of State 

3 wide concern. It is a matter of local concern, but it 

4 does affect more than one political subdivision. 

5 This is the dilemma v/hich we cite at the 

6 moment. We are watching with a great deal of interest 

7 what does come out, that these matters really be a matter 

8 of concern to this particular Commission at this point. 

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Kostritsky. 

10 Mr . Brooks ? 

11 MR. BROOKS: Some of you may want to refer to 

12 the Staff memo included in your materials. This summer 

13 we had with us a graduate student from Johns Hopkins 

14 named John Elwood, who contributed to researching a number 

15 of the questions in the area of local government. 

16 Also very fortunately, we had for two weeks Walter Barnett 

17 that we borrowed from a law firm in the City that helped 

18 with the drafting of the draft you have dated the lAth. 

19 Also this particular draft shares some of my own views. 

20 As the Committee's own discussions have progressed, some* 

21 of the discussions among the Staff and our studies have 



THE J^CK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICt 
100 Equilablr Bjil.liRf 



10 



348 



1 changed our opinions as to what should be recommended as 

2 time has progressed. 

3 One of the products of this is a draft that 
* is becoming increasingly shorter over the prior drafts 

5 in that one of our purposes was to achieve a reasonably 

6 succinct while having adequate coverage of the area of 

7 local government and a new Constitution. 

8 One of the things we very much wanted to elim- 

9 inate and have in this particular draft is what Mr. 
Scanlan, I believe, referred to as the details of how 

J-^ you go about getting a charter in the County or any 

^2 political subdivision. The idea of some importance was. 

13 is there in fact at the present time, a level of govern- 

14r ment betv/een the City, excuse me, between the County and 

15 the State; and if so, hov^7 would one identify it at the 

16 moment, and it would seem that this level of government 

17 already exists in the form of some 20-plus authorities, 

18 most of which are rather inactive and several of which 

19 are supposed to be active and very ineffective at the 

20 moment. But these authorities do, in fact, attempt to 

21 carry out some of the responsibilities in between the 



THE MCK SATcjMON rf.poktinc servick 

100 EqtiitjI.lr H^iiM.n; 
Court Reporler, B.Ilm.ur, 2. MaryUnJ i..i/l«/»n 9.671,0 



349 



1 County and the State that have some intergovernmental 

2 responsibilities. One of the things that became apparent 

3 from this study, however, was that most persons who 
* have done a great deal of work in the area of regional 
5 authorities point out two difficulties with such authority 
^ one that they are not representative, that they are 

^ appointed by a number of other participating governments 

8 and they are not necessarily in any way proportional 

^ representation; and secondly, that they are mostly single 

^^ purpose authorities that have built-in prejudices against 

^^ ever becoming multi-purpose , and they themselves have 

^2 vested interests which prevent required and desirable 

13 cooperation between the various authorities that are 

1^ set up, such as for instance, the Rapid Transit Authority 

15 which may have reason to consider some coordination 

16 with the development of the new suburban areas, and the 

17 development of the operations of the suburban water and 

18 sewerage and sanitary authorities not usually of a mind 

19 to cooperate with such authorities; and it has been 

20 recommended that the efforts of those authorities be 

21 divided in one single direction . It would seem desirable 



THE J\CK SALOMON RF.rORTlNC SERVICE 

100 Eqiiilablr Bjil.lxr.f 

C.i/rl Ktperltr, B.llimorf 2. M.oUnJ LtMU>tle^ 9.6.-60 



350 



1 to have a fourth level of government, one between the 

2 County and the State which is so structured as to guide 

3 all this effort in a single direction through organized 

4 regional governments that are created on a representative 

5 basis. 

6 Second, because of the general grant that was 

7 approved at the last meeting to Counties of powers, 

8 plus, and because of the recognition of the fact that 

9 Maryland has a rare opportunity in having 24 strong 

10 County governments, including Baltimore City, gives the 

11 State an opportunity to develop a kind of regional 

12 government in the form of these Counties which is really 

13 not available in the experience of any other State in 

14 America today. 

15 Already the State has done a great deal in 

16 strengthening Counties compared to cities, and the act 

17 of giving the Counties the broad grant of power that you 

18 have is very significant. Therefore, one effort was to 

19 capitalize, so to speak, upon making the Counties the 

20 significant subordinate government to the State so that 

21 here is recognized the Counties do have such power, and 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Fqiiilablr BiiiMir.g 

C«.rl Krp«.«t . Biltlmor, 2. MaoUnd 1«««»«- 9-6:60 



y\ 



351 



that they then have the paramount power over all of 
the territory included within their boundaries, and this 
'^ immediately raised problems as to what you do about the 

cities in that the cities either have to be separated 
^ from the Counties altogether or they must have some kind 
of concurrent powers over the areas in which they control 
within the County. This was resolved in favor of the 
County having the power to grant its ov/n powers to 
municipalities, and any territory, and regulating the 
creation of these. There are two alternatives here. 

I mentioned a moment ago alternative 2 v/hich 
is what I conceived or understood to be the Committee's 
determination. Perhaps it is more elaborately worded 
than what they would want. Alternative 1 is another draft 
■^^ which says virtually the same thing, but is somewhat 
^^ shorter, but it took liberties in redrafting the whole 

^" first provision the Committee submitted, and the last 

Section is, in fact, a similar section to the interstate 



4 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 



18 



•^ agreement that appears in the Committee Report, except 

20 

this entire document uses cities rather than municipal 

21 

corporations in order to clearly define it without having 



THE J\CK SAIDMON Rf.POKTl.NC SERVICE 

100 Kqwitjhir IljII.Ung 

Ccurl Krporlert Baltimurr 2. Mar)LnJ l.».wf«.n 9-6760 



352 



1 to use the verbiage defined in the Constitution what we 

2 mean by municipal corporations. 

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sayre? 

^ MR, SAYRE: Abbrievating some thoughts here, 

5 there is a booklet put out by Columbia City which reads, 

6 Nowhere else in the country are two cities so big and so 

7 close together as Washington and Baltimore. From center 

8 to center they are 37 miles apart and the modern beltways 

9 which ring both cities are only 20 miles apart. The com 

10 bind population of the metropolitan areas is 4^ million, 

11 and it is one of the fastest-growing regions in the 

12 United States. Between the cities among the major routes 

13 connecting them lies the burgeoning Washington-Baltimore 

14 corridor. In the last fifteen years the 15 Counties 

15 through which the corridor runs have added one million 

16 people. In the next fifteen years there will be another 

17 one million people. 

18 Because of the upward spread of Washington 

19 and Baltimore, this central corridor will absorb the 

20 major share of growth. We have a spring running roughly 

21 from Fairfax, extend it to Richmond, Arlington County, 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Fquitablr Buil.tinf 

Cturt Htporurt BlllJmorr 2, MjobnJ iMiiif/on V-iTbO 



353 



Washington, D.C., Prince Georges, Montgomery County, 
Howard and Arundel, Baltimore County, Baltimore City, 
3 running on up to Philadelphia and New York. This poses 

a whole big problem, and I will try to abbreviate my 
5 remarks where intergovernmental cooperation in our 
^ Federal system requires a framework that will encourage 
' the most desirable allocation of governmental functions, 
® responsibilities, and revenues among the several levels 
^ of government. Indeed, one of our principal purposes 
^^ to borrow from one of the purposes of the Advisory Com- 
mission on Intergovernmental Relations, is to prepare 

IP 

a framework for, methods of coordinating and simplifying 

^^ tax laws and administrative practices to achieve a m.ore 

^^ orderly and less competitive fiscal relationship between 

^^ the levels of government and to reduce the burden of 

1^ compliance for taxpayers. 

^"^ There are at least four reasons why local 

^® governments as now constituted are unable with increasing 

^^ frequency to perform area-wide functions effectively. 

I 

^^ They are as follows: One, fragmentation and overlapping 

of governmental units usually with no immediate govern- 

THE J^CK SALOMON RF.POKTINC SLRVICK 

100 Kiiiilul'lr Uuil.lir.g 

Ccurt Krporleri Biltini.jrc 2. .\tdr)land t«m|'o-i »«:«0 



354 



1 mental mechanism for dealing with area-wide problems on 

.2 a coordinated responsible base. Whenever the word, 

3 responsible, is used, this means somehow directly respon- 

^ sible to the people that they are acting for. 

5 Number two, disparities between tax and service 

6 boundaries which means that the larger the number of 

7 independent governmental jurisdictions within a metro- 

8 politan area, the more inequitable and difficult becomes 

9 the process of financing those governmental services 
^^ which by their nature, are area-wide in character. 

11 Three, State constitutional and statutory 

12 restrictions, namely, barriers to modernizing the 

13 structure and functions of local governments in metro- 
1^ politan areas especially with regard to the organization 

15 and functions of County government, including the role 

16 to tax and borrow money. 

17 Lastly, number four, metropolitan area prob- 

18 lems very often cross State lines. One-fifth of our 

19 nation's people are contained in 26 metropolitan areas 

20 that include territory in two or more States. Nowhere 

21 has there been an adequate solution to coordinating and 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 
100 Equiublr Building 
C»url Rtporlert Baltimurc 2, M.O'Und * 



4 



355 



handling interstate problems, problems of matching 

o 

political jurisdiction and responsibility with needs and 

3 resources. Now, we really have all the material through 

these various Reports on the Advisory Commission on 
5 Intergovernmental Relations, and I don't see any better 
^ way of referring back to this full subject than to refer 
''' to some of these Reports. 
° Right here the criteria set out on Pages 12 

^ and 14 and A-11, June 1962, I will bypass, but it 

set forth the full line of criteria we have to consider 
in this entire Article, Powers needed beyond ordinary 
territorial limits encompass control over possible threat 
*3 to health and safety, abatement of nuisances, water 
^^ supply, pollution controls, master plans, regulation of 
15 zoning in subdivisions, rail and mass transit, building 
1^ and so forth. The weakness of City-County intergovern- 
^'^ mental agreement and single and/or multi-purpose author- 

1® ities that they work only when the immediate local intereJ 
1^ of each participating unit is thought likely to be in 
2^ conflict with the broader area-v7ide interest. 
^1 Thus, intergovernmental agreements are not 

THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 tqiiitablr B.iil.ling 

Court Krporltrt Ballimorf 2. Maryland Lttinflo ».6:60 



10 

11 

12 





356 




1 


not suited to effective decision making on issues which 




2 


transcend the interests of any one part of the area and mu 


St 


3 


depend on an area-wide majority approval rather than 




4 


area-wide unanimity of all the governmental jurisdictions . 




5 


I would like to just jump off and leave my argument and 




6 


take about another three minutes. 




7 


THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. 




8 


MR. SAYRE: Both single and multi-purpose 




9 


districts have been able to render area-wide services. 




10 


While the single purpose authority usually emanates from 




11 


a State Legislature, there could be agreement between 




12 


Counties and municipalities that create such authority. 




13 


However, we are at the dawn when a great many functions 




14: 


must be handled on an area-wide basis. A proliferation 




15 


of single purpose authorities would make a hollow shell 




16 


of local County government by the continuous erosion of 




17 


functions to these limited purpose special districts. 




18 


and you would have a great maze of functions that would 




19 


grow up. Now, in regard to multi-purpose districts, a 




20 


multi-purpose district would appear the logical alterna- 




21 


tive to the single purpose district by permitting by law 


- 




THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable BuilJing 

C»url Keptrltrt Baltimore 2. »f»nljnd Ltzinilon 9tTtO 





357 



1 the location of a number of services to be performed on 

2 an area-wide basis. However, limited experience with mult 

3 purpose districts has been that it is voluntary, and that 

4 the district and the addition of functions to it requires 

5 the approval of local governing boards or of the voters 

6 of the effect of local government. 

7 Now, if we jump then to the bypassing of some 

8 of the weaknesses, it would mean that we would come to 

9 something like a general purpose district that would be 

10 able to act with the representative authority, that a multi 

11 purpose district could not act with. A government in 

12 a democracy means a definite means of representation of 

13 the people it governs is embodied in the control and 

14 dec is ion -making process. Such a general purpose district 

15 or government would allow a two-level structure of 

16 government with the assignment of certain general purpose 

17 responsibilities to each level. Functions not assigned 

18 to the area-wide government would be retained by the 

19 County or by the nonconforming municipalities. For the 

20 more rural areas, the disttict government would be more 

21 or less dormant, having perhaps responsibility for 
devel nninp a ppnprni pi pn fnr i r^ — zoning ond ccononiic 

' THE J \CK SALOMON RF.POnTINC SEKVICK ""^ 



L- 



100 Eqiiilablr Buil.lmg 

, ,, , , LtMintmn 9t.60 

Court Reporleri BaUmiorr 2, MjO'I''"" 



358 



1 growth. For the urban metropolitan suburban areas the 

2 district government could be assigned responsibility for 

3 master plans of land use and water supply, infiltration, 

4 pollution control, and so forth. There are certain 

5 areas, I think we have to have greater area-wide respon- 

6 sibility government so that we would have sort of a two- 

7 tier layer, each equally democratic, the methods resolved 

8 by the area affected or by the General Assembly. This 

9 is something we can discuss later, but in any event, I 

10 think the necessity for an area-wide general purpose 

11 government is necessary. 

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Sayer. 

13 We have a practical problem with respect to 

14 the hour of convening tomorrow morning. I can put that 

15 to a vote since you will not be here tomorrow, Mr. Case. 

16 We have debated it and if there is no further debate, 

17 let's put the question to a vote. 

18 MR. CLAGETT: I would have to make one further 

19 comment, and that is what we are voting to abandon and 

20 what the Committee has proposed in its draft is exactly 

21 what you will find in Article 13 at the present time. 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Eqiiiubic Building 

C»url Rrporlert Billimore 2, MjrylinJ Itxinilon 9-6:60 



359 



1 In other words, the first sentence which you are amcnd- 

2 ing is contained in Article 13 almost verbatim, and it has 

3 worked there. There is no reason why it shouldn't con- 

4 tinue to work. 

5 THE CHAlRiMAN: Let me restate the motion as I 

6 now understand it to be. If you will refer back to 

7 Section 11.01 (b) , second paragraph. I understand that 

8 the purpose of the motion, not the exact phrasing of it, 

9 the purpose of the motion is to rephrase the first sen- 

10 tence of the second paragraph of 11.01 (b) so as to 

11 provide that no new County shall be created without 

12 the consent of the majority of the voters voting thereon 

13 who reside within each County merged voting separately. 

14 That is stated very poorly, but the general idea is that 

15 the referendum will be a separate referendum requiring 

16 a majority vote of the voters of each County which is 

17 a party to the merger. Is the question clear? 

18 GOVERNOR LANE: Each to decide Yes or No? 

19 THE CHAIRM/iN: And you must have the affirma- 

20 tive Yes for both or all three before the merger can 

21 be accomplished. That differs from the present sentence 



THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitablr BuilJing 

Court Krporleri B.lUmort 2. Mar) land icxin|»01 9-6:«0 



360 



1 in that the present sentence would require the majority 

2 of the total number of voters in the new area combined 

3 total. 

A vote Aye is a vote in favor of the addition 

5 al limitation being written into the first sentence, 

6 namely that you have separate approval by the voters, a 

7 majority of the voters of each area. A vote No leaves 

8 it the way it is now. In either event, the Section 

9 will still be before the Conimission for further consider' 
^^ ation arid other amendment. 

^^ Any question now? Ready for the question? 

^2 All those in favor of the motion that is in favor of 

13 the additional restriction in this sentence, signify by 

14- a show of hands. Contrary? The motion fails 10 to 12. 

15 Mr. Brooks has another announcement. 

16 MR. BROOKS: I have another letter today from 
1*7 a student in high school in Washington, D.C., and from 

18 the indication here, I think some or everyone here must 

19 have gotten a letter from some high school student in 

of 

20 D.C. Some / you have given us your letters to answer and 

21 we have done so. This letter indicates they have not 

THE JACK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equitable Buildinf 

C»url Reporltr, B»ltimorr 2. Maryland LmMimglOH 9-6.-60 



■^ 1 



361 



received responses and I am sure that is the case, but 
on the other hand from a public relations standpoint, 
5 we should handle such letters either personally or the 
Staff would, so if you can't handle the letters, we are 



4 



9 



^ in a position to try to send some information to students 
** if you get requests . 
"^ MR. SYKES: If the Staff might be interested, 

® I handled the letter by taking the University of Maryland 
Extension Service bulletin and saying, I am in favor of 



the Convention for those reasons, and even though I might 

have voted contrary to certain specific provisions, 

12 

in the final version, I am wholeheartedly in support of 

^^ the whole version. 

^^ MR. BROOKS: That is a good point, and if otheJs 

^^ of you want some of these brochures , then V7e v;ill send 

^° you copies to answer such correspondence with. 

^^ THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 8 o'clock 

^® breakfast; 8:30 in here. 

^^ (Whereupon the meeting adjourned, to reconvene 

^^ at 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, October 25, 1966.) 

21 



THE J^CK SALOMON REPORTING SERVICE 

100 Equiuble Buildin; 

Curl Reporler$ Blltimore 2. M.nUnJ t.»««'»n 9-4.-60 



UNIV. OF MD COLLEGE PARK 




3 m3D D333TflTS 1